View Poll Results: 9/11 Was...

Voters
15979. You may not vote on this poll
  • A staged Demolition, and was no terrorist attack

    6,454 40.39%
  • Was a Terrorist attack and crashed from Fire Damage

    9,525 59.61%
Reply
Page 36 of 38 FirstFirst ... 26 34 35 36 37 38 LastLast
Results 1,051 to 1,080 of 1130
  1. #1051
    Registered User rsnnh12's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2009
    Age: 32
    Posts: 3,625
    Rep Power: 4010
    rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    rsnnh12 is offline
    Originally Posted by voodoo101 View Post
    WHATEVER YOU DO DON'T LISTEN TO FIREFIGHTER JOHN SCHROEDER! That's why the little treasonous bastard buried it in a wall of image inside of 3 minutes... WOW! Schroeder ran out of the South tower with his firefighter brothers 2 minutes before it collapsed. He deserves a hearing.

    He says it wasn't just the fires and the jets, "something else was going on."


    Voodoo, if you actually care about the truth, you will read this link. It addresses all of the problems with Schroeder's story, using many eyewitnesses to help clarify what happened, including interviews with other members of Engine 10, who were there with Schroeder, by his side the whole time.

    Cliffs are provided on the first page, but it goes in-depth on other pages. I hope you at least read the cliffs portion, and realize that Schroeder is wrong about his timeline for major points of that day.

    http://sites.google.com/site/911stories/anopenletter
    Reply With Quote

  2. #1052
    Banned Bsip's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2011
    Age: 29
    Posts: 305
    Rep Power: 0
    Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10)
    Bsip is offline
    Originally Posted by voodoo101 View Post
    Of course I know a lot about it. I'm an American and no fukkin traitors are going to take over my country, send my brothers to war for a false flag, and bankrupt and ruin what was a beautiful experiment in democracy. Phaggot. It's my business to know.

    Truth-dodging and deception? From Mr. "The tower cores were made of concrete?" Here's where you said that (LINK) and where I slapped you down like a prison bitch. I guess you like that and need it again. Again you think Americans are stupid enough to believe anything, so you can explain why a solid piece of 60-story steel core plunged straight down after starting to tip to one side. Watch the video. What is "pancaking" it? Nothing. It is being demolished from the bottom up. Smoking gun that you strenuously or dismiss with retarded bullsh!t like "the falling mass of MASSIVE tons of concrete falling around it!"


    http://9-11cc.org
    Good thing your not an architect Voodoo. Getting a structure to stand requires more than just sticking it in the ground. There's really not much left to support your "spire," and with all the damage on the bottom that just occured from the tower collapsing, it's perfectly reasonable to see how it fell the way it did.
    Reply With Quote

  3. #1053
    Banned voodoo101's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2009
    Age: 63
    Posts: 5,622
    Rep Power: 0
    voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000)
    voodoo101 is offline
    Originally Posted by Bsip View Post
    Good thing your not an architect Voodoo. Getting a structure to stand requires more than just sticking it in the ground. There's really not much left to support your "spire," and with all the damage on the bottom that just occured from the tower collapsing, it's perfectly reasonable to see how it fell the way it did.
    are you a 19-year-old architect? Not being an architect, I see nothing reasonable about your reasoning. Please explain how the "damage at the bottom" results in the 47, continuous from bottom to top steel columns being cut into pieces from the bottom up. Now when we do a demolition can they just drop piles of rocks around the base and watch the structure come straight down, in a manner which implodes into itself to avoid damage to abutting buildings? How exactly are the vertical beams getting cut and falling at free-fall speed through air, which is the speed at which the remaining core disappears?

    The mass supposedly "falling down" (which it didn't, it exploded outward which is why 20 ton steel pieces are found multiple tower-widths away,) was the mass the core was built to support, times a factor of six times stronger than it had to be. So that mass sliding down around the core is going to weaken five-foot wide steel beams in a way which causes them to cut themselves into pieces? Sorry, I'm not getting it, help me out.

    The core was like a record spindle on one of those old record players. In the unlikely event of a "pancake," the floors would have stripped themselves from the core, and the core remained standing, like the record player spindle. And it did.

    You say "there is more to getting a structure to stand than sticking it in the ground." Ever heard of a tree? They seem to stand pretty well. Yes, that is a n oversimplification, but we are talking about the core, the strongest part of the building which was meant to support the rest. The perimeter columns were gone by then, right? Each of the 47 cross-braced vertical columns in the core was embedded in 30 feet of concrete foundation and bedrock.

    here is the video again for reference. What happened to the "pancake" theory? What is "pancaking" this 60-story core structure down at free-fall speed? Nothing. It is being demolished from the bottom up, traditional demo pattern.



    below a fair explanation of the towers' construction from: http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/kp_towers.htm

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    Flaws in the official 9/11 account — the explosive disintegration of the WTC twin towers

    1. Construction of the towers




    The first step in beginning to analyse and critique the official account of the tower collapses is to understand the way they were built. Each tower was like a giant steel cage made of 236 steel perimeter box columns (35 cm x 35 cm), joined together with steel spandrels at regular intervals. The characteristic vertical lines on the fours sides of the towers were simply these steel columns, covered with aluminium. Running up the centre of the towers were 47 even larger steel box columns (36 x 90 cm or 55 x 135 cm), which were cross braced. The steel plate used in the columns was 100 mm thick at the base, and got thinner towards the top, where it had to carry less load.

    At each floor, the outer columns were connected to the core columns with steel trusses, bolted to welded steel brackets on the columns (below right). The trusses were covered with corrugated metal sheet, and a layer of concrete was poured on top. Thus each tower was essentially a massive steel structure — steel perimeter, steel core and steel floors — with concrete only serving to distribute the weight on each floor.
    "What struck us – guys like Warren Jennings and myself, who have spent basically all our lives in the scrap business – we’d never seen steel this heavy, this huge, this massive. It was just unbelievable."

    - Michael Henderson, General Manager, Marine Terminals, Metal Management NE, quoted in "Stepping Through the Ashes" (p. 93)


    Below left: WTC core columns ready for recycling (top), and the rubble at 'ground zero' was mostly steel column segments (bottom).

    Last edited by voodoo101; 09-05-2011 at 05:44 PM.
    Reply With Quote

  4. #1054
    Banned Bsip's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2011
    Age: 29
    Posts: 305
    Rep Power: 0
    Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10)
    Bsip is offline
    Originally Posted by voodoo101 View Post
    are you a 19-year-old architect? Not being an architect, I see nothing reasonable about your reasoning. Please explain how the "damage at the bottom" results in the vertical columns being cut into pieces from the bottom up. Now when we do a demolition can they just drop piles of rocks around the base and watch the structure come straight down, in a manner which implodes into itself to avoid damage to abutting buildings? How exactly are the vertical beams getting cut and falling at free-fall speed through air, which is the speed at which the remaining core disappears?

    The mass supposedly "falling down" (which it didn't, it exploded outward which is why 20 ton steel pieces are found multiple tower-widths away,) was the mass the core was built to support, times a factor of six times stronger than it had to be. So that mass sliding down around the core is going to weaken five-foot wide steel beams in a way which causes them to cut themselves into pieces? Sorry, I'm not getting it, help me out.

    The core was like a record spindle on one of those old record players. In the unlikely event of a "pancake," the floors would have stripped themselves from the core, and the core remained standing, like the record player spindle. And it did.

    You say "there is more to getting a structure to stand than sticking it in the ground." Ever heard of a tree? They seem to stand pretty well. Yes, that is a n oversimplification, but we are talking about the core, the strongest part of the building which was meant to support the rest. The perimeter columns were gone by then, right? Each of the 47 cross-braced vertical columns in the core was embedded in 30 feet of concrete foundation and bedrock.

    here is the video again for reference:



    [/I]
    No, neither one of us are architects but I'm not the one claiming that it "can't possibly have fallen" without a demolition from the ground. Just because the vertical columns of the core were burried in concrete doesn't mean the portion above the concrete couldn't have sustained damage and fallen. Look at :50 of your own video. As I said before, the structural integrity of the remaining portion is incredibly compromised and is swaying around the entire time. Once the left portion starts to lean, this pushes it off center and down it goes.

    That's the only thing that can be concluded by the human eye....The rest is common sense when you go back to how the towers fell - from the top up, not the other way around.
    Reply With Quote

  5. #1055
    Banned voodoo101's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2009
    Age: 63
    Posts: 5,622
    Rep Power: 0
    voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000)
    voodoo101 is offline
    Originally Posted by Bsip View Post
    Originally Posted by Bsip View Post
    Good thing your not an architect Voodoo. Getting a structure to stand requires more than just sticking it in the ground. There's really not much left to support your "spire," and with all the damage on the bottom that just occured from the tower collapsing, it's perfectly reasonable to see how it fell the way it did.
    are you a 19-year-old architect? Not being an architect, I see nothing reasonable about your reasoning. Please explain how the "damage at the bottom" results in the 47, continuous from bottom to top steel columns being cut into pieces from the bottom up. Now when we do a demolition can they just drop piles of rocks around the base and watch the structure come straight down, in a manner which implodes into itself to avoid damage to abutting buildings? How exactly are the vertical beams getting cut and falling at free-fall speed through air, which is the speed at which the remaining core disappears?

    The mass supposedly "falling down" (which it didn't, it exploded outward which is why 20 ton steel pieces are found multiple tower-widths away,) was the mass the core was built to support, times a factor of six times stronger than it had to be. So that mass sliding down around the core is going to weaken five-foot wide steel beams in a way which causes them to cut themselves into pieces? Sorry, I'm not getting it, help me out.

    The core was like a record spindle on one of those old record players. In the unlikely event of a "pancake," the floors would have stripped themselves from the core, and the core remained standing, like the record player spindle. And it did.

    You say "there is more to getting a structure to stand than sticking it in the ground." Ever heard of a tree? They seem to stand pretty well. Yes, that is a n oversimplification, but we are talking about the core, the strongest part of the building which was meant to support the rest. The perimeter columns were gone by then, right? Each of the 47 cross-braced vertical columns in the core was embedded in 30 feet of concrete foundation and bedrock.

    here is the video again for reference. What happened to the "pancake" theory? What is "pancaking" this 60-story core structure down at free-fall speed? Nothing. It is being demolished from the bottom up, traditional demo pattern.



    below a fair explanation of the towers' construction from: http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/kp_towers.htm

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    Flaws in the official 9/11 account — the explosive disintegration of the WTC twin towers

    1. Construction of the towers




    The first step in beginning to analyse and critique the official account of the tower collapses is to understand the way they were built. Each tower was like a giant steel cage made of 236 steel perimeter box columns (35 cm x 35 cm), joined together with steel spandrels at regular intervals. The characteristic vertical lines on the fours sides of the towers were simply these steel columns, covered with aluminium. Running up the centre of the towers were 47 even larger steel box columns (36 x 90 cm or 55 x 135 cm), which were cross braced. The steel plate used in the columns was 100 mm thick at the base, and got thinner towards the top, where it had to carry less load.

    At each floor, the outer columns were connected to the core columns with steel trusses, bolted to welded steel brackets on the columns (below right). The trusses were covered with corrugated metal sheet, and a layer of concrete was poured on top. Thus each tower was essentially a massive steel structure — steel perimeter, steel core and steel floors — with concrete only serving to distribute the weight on each floor.
    "What struck us – guys like Warren Jennings and myself, who have spent basically all our lives in the scrap business – we’d never seen steel this heavy, this huge, this massive. It was just unbelievable."

    - Michael Henderson, General Manager, Marine Terminals, Metal Management NE, quoted in "Stepping Through the Ashes" (p. 93)


    Below left: WTC core columns ready for recycling (top), and the rubble at 'ground zero' was mostly steel column segments (bottom).

    CAD simulation of tower interior construction
    No, neither one of us are architects but I'm not the one claiming that it "can't possibly have fallen" without a demolition from the ground. Just because the vertical columns of the core were burried in concrete doesn't mean the portion above the concrete couldn't have sustained damage and fallen. Look at :50 of your own video. As I said before, the structural integrity of the remaining portion is incredibly compromised and is swaying around the entire time. Once the left portion starts to lean, this pushes it off center and down it goes.

    That's the only thing that can be concluded by the human eye....The rest is common sense when you go back to how the towers fell - from the top up, not the other way around.
    The towers were built for a 6 foot sway in high winds so they went off center all the time. Steel is incredibly strong. But let's grant it for the sake of argument. The core doesn't just go down, it goes down in pieces at free-fall speed, otherwise they would have found 600-foot cores beams laying across lower Manhattan, which they didn't.

    This is what they found, exactly as it lay before any clean-up began: http://busharchives.org/911/wtc.html
    Reply With Quote

  6. #1056
    Banned DocHol1day's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2008
    Location: United States
    Age: 36
    Posts: 22,085
    Rep Power: 0
    DocHol1day has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) DocHol1day has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) DocHol1day has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) DocHol1day has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) DocHol1day has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) DocHol1day has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) DocHol1day has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) DocHol1day has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) DocHol1day has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) DocHol1day has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) DocHol1day has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    DocHol1day is offline
    Originally Posted by frasersteen View Post
    wait wait wait...........




    are you saying the lord of the rings was an inside job?
    Reply With Quote

  7. #1057
    Registered User dlaliberte's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2011
    Age: 66
    Posts: 18
    Rep Power: 0
    dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10)
    dlaliberte is offline

    NIST says external damage to WTC 7 did NOT cause collapse

    Originally Posted by Rowbro View Post
    Dlaliberte, your argument would be pretty strong if all the events you describe occurred exactly as you described them (except for the BBC thing, nusty has posted a real argument there, no it's not a straw man).
    From illogical to high praise. Cool.

    A few people claim the BBC pre-collapse report is a definitive case for a master script, but I didn't and Graeme McQueen did not. So it is a straw man argument for you to claim we said something we didn't, then blow it up into something even bigger that we also didn't say, and then knock it down.

    However your claims that WTC 7 was not badly damaged is not true, as I can show shortly.
    We can investigate the external damage to WTC 7, and more should be done there. But in fact, NIST agrees that it was not the external damage that caused the collapse. It was supposedly the fires instead. Here is what Popular Mechanics said about what NIST claimed in their final report:

    The report determines that the actual culprit in the collapse was the combustion of ordinary building furnishings: "These uncontrolled fires had characteristics similar to those that have occurred previously in tall buildings." If the sprinkler system in WTC 7 had been working, it is likely that "the fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented." The report also suggests that current engineering standards for coping with fire-induced thermal expansion need to be re-examined, particularly for buildings like WTC 7 that have long, unsupported floor spans. A key factor in the collapse, NIST concluded, was the failure of structural "connections that were designed to resist gravity loads, but not thermally induced lateral loads." According to Sunder: "For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse."

    Read more: "World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest"- Popular Mechanics

    And from the final report itself:
    "Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."

    So NIST claims this progressive collapse (which, as we all know, is inconsistent with free fall) of WTC 7 was caused by fire. The fires were supposedly started by the impact of falling debris, but that is the extent of the importance of the falling debris.

    If you want to provide more evidence of more severe external damage to the south side of WTC 7, that will ironically weaken the case that the external damage caused the collapse at all. This is because what we saw for 2.5 seconds of free fall was a *symmetrical straight down drop*, and no tilting until the upper floors encountered resistance from below. (NIST appears to have recognized this, by the way, and didn't fall for it.)

    If the external damage to the south side of WTC 7 caused the collapse, then the collapse would have started out asymmetrically, as it did for WTC 2, where the top third of the tower tilted about 23 degrees in the direction of the asymmetrical damage partially caused by the impact of the plane.

    Now if you are not saying the external damage to WTC 7 caused the collapse, and you agree the damage wasn't enough to cause any asymmetry in the collapse except maybe near the end, then we don't have to argue this point. And you can stop showing your huge images of damage to the exterior of WTC 7 and other unrelated buildings. On the other hand, if you DO want to argue this point, then you are really arguing with NIST over the true cause of the collapse.

    Also to submit to the theory that Building 7 was demolished by explosives is to ignore the fact that part of the building collapsed first, and the rest collapsed outside of its own "shadow" or perimeter, actually damaging surrounding buildings.
    Which part of WTC 7 do you believe collapsed first? Do you believe it was the south side that collapsed first? If so, did NIST agree with you on that point? I don't think so, but maybe you can find some support for that in their report.

    If the south side was damaged enough to collapse first, while the north side was still holding strong, then the whole building would have leaned to the south before falling, would it not? If the south side AND the interior columns were collapsing while the north side was still holding strong, so much the worse for your case. The video you embedded shows the north and west faces of WTC 7, and makes it pretty clear that the north AND west faces were intact as they fell straight down for 2.5 seconds.

    I believe NIST argued that, due to fires, the interior core columns collapsed first, leaving all of the perimeter columns intact. Let's see what they say, after describing the initial failure of the interior columns (page 22):

    The failure of the interior columns then proceeded toward the west. Truss 2 (Figure 1–6) failed, hit by the debris from the falling floors. This caused Column 77 and Column 78 to fail, followed shortly by Column 76. Each north-south line of three core columns then buckled in succession from east to west, due to loss of lateral support from floor system failures, to the forces exerted by falling debris, which tended to push the columns westward, and to the loads redistributed to them from the buckled columns. Within seconds, the entire building core was buckling.

    The global collapse of WTC 7 was underway. The shell of exterior columns buckled between the 7th and 14th floors, as loads were redistributed to these columns due to the downward movement of the building core and the floors. The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward as a single unit, completing the global collapse sequence.

    So, if you want to remain consistent with the official story from NIST, you should drop your argument that the south side fell first. Agreed?

    On to the next bit:

    In truth, arguments centered around the supposed demolition of building 7 can not really lay any claim to the demolition of WTC 1 and 2, because they were two similar but distinct events that require distinct explanations.
    We agree, the falls of the three towers were different and require distinct explanations. What does "lay any claim" mean? If you mean that proof of demolition of WTC 7 does not imply WTC 1 and 2 were intentionally demolished as well, I might agree. Some claim that implication holds, but I am not pushing it here, so we can set that aside for now.

    "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately ten stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out," Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology"
    - alternet.org /story/41601/
    You should update your source of material. The NIST final report on WTC 7 says something different (page 16):

    Pieces of WTC 1 hit WTC 7, severing six columns on Floors 7 through 17 on the south face and one column on the west face near the southwest corner. The debris also caused structural damage between Floor 44 and the roof. The damage to the building face is depicted in Figure 2–1. Based on photographic evidence, witness accounts, and engineering judgment, it is likely that the structural damage (steel and floor slabs) did not penetrate beyond the perimeter of the building core. At the southwest corner, the structural damage extended only about one-third of the distance from the exterior wall to the building core.

    On to what the firefighters saw...

    So according to the reports by the firefighters, there was a large area on one side that was very much damaged, as well as another separate area with even more extensive and high-reaching damage, at least to the 18th floor of the building. Much of this damage is the result of the steel perimeter columns falling during the WTC collapse.
    You appear to be making the case that the firefighters were expecting WTC 7 to fall because of this external damage. Is that right?

    But according to NIST, even if the firefighters did have that expectation about the imminent collapse, they were completely wrong about the cause of the collapse. According to NIST, the cause of the collapse was not this external damage but some freckishly improbable internal combination of flaws that was invisible to the firefighters outside. And if the firefighters were right, the collapse caused by external damage would have very likely been very asymmetrical, very incomplete, and very slow, whereas the collapse actually proceeded very symmetrically, very completely, and very fast. It is difficult to be more completely wrong.

    So if you believe the firefighters did have foreknowledge of the collapse, because they could tell it was about to collapse based on this external damage and apparent buckling etc, and it turns out they were completely wrong about this cause of the collapse, according to NIST, well then, how did they really get this foreknowledge?

    Or maybe the firefighters were right and NIST was wrong about the real cause of the collapse.

    Now we can fast forward to the actual collapse of the building. What most conspiracy theorists show is a video of the building falling freely down, and I'll admit myself the first time I saw this video I thought WOW maybe there is a shred of credibility to these theories.
    Even official conspiracy theorists watch the video, and show it around. Cool.

    Keep pushing on that shred of rationality about the free fall of WTC 7. There is a lot more in there.

    However I realized my mistake as soon as I researched just a little bit: that section of the building collapsed SECOND. The most highly damaged area of WTC 7 began to collapse at about 5:20 according to officials on the scene, who reported bucking in one of the corner support columns.
    So your research exposed your mistake, and also NIST's mistake? Is that what you are saying? NIST doesn't acknowledge any exterior buckling until after all the interior columns had buckled. NIST doesn't say any part of the building fell, except the penthouses, until the core was all nice and weakened. THEN the perimeter shell fell, according to them. You disagree?

    Here is a video of the collapse. I'm truly sorry but right now I legitimately can't find the video showing the part of the tower that collapses first.

    Here is a video showing a plume of smoke on the opposite side, where that part fell down seconds before the entire building collapsed. Again very sorry, I will find that video I know it's online somewhere:
    If you believe you saw such a video showing some part of WTC 7 that collapses first, perhaps there are a few too many plumes of smoke in your neighborhood.

    Maybe what you are thinking of is among this compilation of all the videos known at the time in 2007: youtube watch?v=U0GW6QXKyp0
    There have been a few more released since then, including the one you linked to.

    If you are thinking that the falling of the East penthouse indicates the first part of the tower to fall was the south east, then you are still disagreeing with NIST.
    Reply With Quote

  8. #1058
    Banned voodoo101's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2009
    Age: 63
    Posts: 5,622
    Rep Power: 0
    voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000)
    voodoo101 is offline
    Originally Posted by DocHol1day View Post
    Originally Posted by Bsip View Post
    Originally Posted by Bsip View Post
    Good thing your not an architect Voodoo. Getting a structure to stand requires more than just sticking it in the ground. There's really not much left to support your "spire," and with all the damage on the bottom that just occured from the tower collapsing, it's perfectly reasonable to see how it fell the way it did.
    are you a 19-year-old architect? Not being an architect, I see nothing reasonable about your reasoning. Please explain how the "damage at the bottom" results in the 47, continuous from bottom to top steel columns being cut into pieces from the bottom up. Now when we do a demolition can they just drop piles of rocks around the base and watch the structure come straight down, in a manner which implodes into itself to avoid damage to abutting buildings? How exactly are the vertical beams getting cut and falling at free-fall speed through air, which is the speed at which the remaining core disappears?

    The mass supposedly "falling down" (which it didn't, it exploded outward which is why 20 ton steel pieces are found multiple tower-widths away,) was the mass the core was built to support, times a factor of six times stronger than it had to be. So that mass sliding down around the core is going to weaken five-foot wide steel beams in a way which causes them to cut themselves into pieces? Sorry, I'm not getting it, help me out.

    The core was like a record spindle on one of those old record players. In the unlikely event of a "pancake," the floors would have stripped themselves from the core, and the core remained standing, like the record player spindle. And it did.

    You say "there is more to getting a structure to stand than sticking it in the ground." Ever heard of a tree? They seem to stand pretty well. Yes, that is a n oversimplification, but we are talking about the core, the strongest part of the building which was meant to support the rest. The perimeter columns were gone by then, right? Each of the 47 cross-braced vertical columns in the core was embedded in 30 feet of concrete foundation and bedrock.

    here is the video again for reference. What happened to the "pancake" theory? What is "pancaking" this 60-story core structure down at free-fall speed? Nothing. It is being demolished from the bottom up, traditional demo pattern.



    below a fair explanation of the towers' construction from: http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/kp_towers.htm

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    Flaws in the official 9/11 account — the explosive disintegration of the WTC twin towers

    1. Construction of the towers




    The first step in beginning to analyse and critique the official account of the tower collapses is to understand the way they were built. Each tower was like a giant steel cage made of 236 steel perimeter box columns (35 cm x 35 cm), joined together with steel spandrels at regular intervals. The characteristic vertical lines on the fours sides of the towers were simply these steel columns, covered with aluminium. Running up the centre of the towers were 47 even larger steel box columns (36 x 90 cm or 55 x 135 cm), which were cross braced. The steel plate used in the columns was 100 mm thick at the base, and got thinner towards the top, where it had to carry less load.

    At each floor, the outer columns were connected to the core columns with steel trusses, bolted to welded steel brackets on the columns (below right). The trusses were covered with corrugated metal sheet, and a layer of concrete was poured on top. Thus each tower was essentially a massive steel structure — steel perimeter, steel core and steel floors — with concrete only serving to distribute the weight on each floor.
    "What struck us – guys like Warren Jennings and myself, who have spent basically all our lives in the scrap business – we’d never seen steel this heavy, this huge, this massive. It was just unbelievable."

    - Michael Henderson, General Manager, Marine Terminals, Metal Management NE, quoted in "Stepping Through the Ashes" (p. 93)


    Below left: WTC core columns ready for recycling (top), and the rubble at 'ground zero' was mostly steel column segments (bottom).

    CAD simulation of tower interior construction
    No, neither one of us are architects but I'm not the one claiming that it "can't possibly have fallen" without a demolition from the ground. Just because the vertical columns of the core were burried in concrete doesn't mean the portion above the concrete couldn't have sustained damage and fallen. Look at :50 of your own video. As I said before, the structural integrity of the remaining portion is incredibly compromised and is swaying around the entire time. Once the left portion starts to lean, this pushes it off center and down it goes.

    That's the only thing that can be concluded by the human eye....The rest is common sense when you go back to how the towers fell - from the top up, not the other way around.
    The towers were built for a 6 foot sway in high winds so they went off center all the time. Steel is incredibly strong. But let's grant it for the sake of argument. The core doesn't just go down, it goes down in pieces at free-fall speed, otherwise they would have found 600-foot cores beams laying across lower Manhattan, which they didn't.

    This is what they found, exactly as it lay before any clean-up began: http://busharchives.org/911/wtc.html
    [snip image Lord of the Rings]


    wait wait wait...........

    are you saying the lord of the rings was an inside job?
    troll lesson: is what they do when people start to have a real discussion: disrupt, infiltrate, annoy. It is a sign of important content, please follow the previous exchange.

    better yet, if it annoys you, turn it into positive energy by joining up now at US Senator Mike Gravel's new 911 initiative: http://9-11cc.org

    show them for every bs post like that Mike will get new members. They think this is funny but 3000 Americans dead + wars is not funny.

    http://9-11cc.org
    Reply With Quote

  9. #1059
    Banned Bsip's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2011
    Age: 29
    Posts: 305
    Rep Power: 0
    Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10)
    Bsip is offline
    Originally Posted by voodoo101 View Post
    The towers were built for a 6 foot sway in high winds so they went off center all the time. Steel is incredibly strong. But let's grant it for the sake of argument. The core doesn't just go down, it goes down in pieces at free-fall speed, otherwise they would have found 600-foot cores beams laying across lower Manhattan, which they didn't.

    This is what they found, exactly as it lay before any clean-up began: http://busharchives.org/911/wtc.html
    @1:05: That's a hell of a lot more than 6-feet. The support is clearly compromised before it falls.

    Also, it doesn't go down "in pieces," it pretty much falls as is. And I don't see how that would be relevant anyway - We're not talking about the entire core, just a small portion that quite frankly is already shot to ****.
    Reply With Quote

  10. #1060
    Registered User rsnnh12's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2009
    Age: 32
    Posts: 3,625
    Rep Power: 4010
    rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    rsnnh12 is offline
    Originally Posted by rsnnh12 View Post
    Voodoo, if you actually care about the truth, you will read this link. It addresses all of the problems with Schroeder's story, using many eyewitnesses to help clarify what happened, including interviews with other members of Engine 10, who were there with Schroeder, by his side the whole time.

    Cliffs are provided on the first page, but it goes in-depth on other pages. I hope you at least read the cliffs portion, and realize that Schroeder is wrong about his timeline for major points of that day.

    http://sites.google.com/site/911stories/anopenletter
    Hmm, I wonder why voodoo ignored the info that completely blows apart the video that he felt the need to post twice due to how important he thought it was. Interesting.
    Reply With Quote

  11. #1061
    Banned Bsip's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2011
    Age: 29
    Posts: 305
    Rep Power: 0
    Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10)
    Bsip is offline
    Originally Posted by rsnnh12 View Post
    Hmm, I wonder why voodoo ignored the info that completely blows apart the video that he felt the need to post twice due to how important he thought it was. Interesting.
    That's pretty much this whole thread. I'm sure he's scavenging the CT sites right now looking for a brand new theory.
    Reply With Quote

  12. #1062
    Banned MURDR's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2011
    Location: United States
    Posts: 3,965
    Rep Power: 0
    MURDR is not very well liked. (-100) MURDR is not very well liked. (-100) MURDR is not very well liked. (-100) MURDR is not very well liked. (-100) MURDR is not very well liked. (-100) MURDR is not very well liked. (-100) MURDR is not very well liked. (-100) MURDR is not very well liked. (-100) MURDR is not very well liked. (-100) MURDR is not very well liked. (-100) MURDR is not very well liked. (-100)
    MURDR is offline
    6,349 people are idiots.
    Reply With Quote

  13. #1063
    Banned voodoo101's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2009
    Age: 63
    Posts: 5,622
    Rep Power: 0
    voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000)
    voodoo101 is offline
    Originally Posted by Bsip View Post
    @1:05: That's a hell of a lot more than 6-feet. The support is clearly compromised before it falls.

    Also, it doesn't go down "in pieces," it pretty much falls as is. And I don't see how that would be relevant anyway - We're not talking about the entire core, just a small portion that quite frankly is already shot to ****.
    It was 60 stories tall (600 feet,) half the height of the towers. It wasn't "small." If it didn't go down in piece it there would have been a 600 feet (two football fields) long piece of core crashed across buildings in lower Manhattan. But you can see it starts to tip to the side then that momentum is arrested and it goes straight down like it was swallowed by the ground, which it obviously was not.

    You are right that is more than a 6-foot sway, but are you saying it cracked free of the foundation? If it did then where did it fall? There was no 600 foot section of core.


    here is the video again for reference. What happened to the "pancake" theory? What is "pancaking" this 60-story core structure down at free-fall speed? Nothing. It is being demolished from the bottom up, traditional demo pattern.



    below a fair explanation of the towers' construction from: http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/kp_towers.htm

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    Flaws in the official 9/11 account — the explosive disintegration of the WTC twin towers

    1. Construction of the towers




    The first step in beginning to analyse and critique the official account of the tower collapses is to understand the way they were built. Each tower was like a giant steel cage made of 236 steel perimeter box columns (35 cm x 35 cm), joined together with steel spandrels at regular intervals. The characteristic vertical lines on the fours sides of the towers were simply these steel columns, covered with aluminium. Running up the centre of the towers were 47 even larger steel box columns (36 x 90 cm or 55 x 135 cm), which were cross braced. The steel plate used in the columns was 100 mm thick at the base, and got thinner towards the top, where it had to carry less load.

    At each floor, the outer columns were connected to the core columns with steel trusses, bolted to welded steel brackets on the columns (below right). The trusses were covered with corrugated metal sheet, and a layer of concrete was poured on top. Thus each tower was essentially a massive steel structure — steel perimeter, steel core and steel floors — with concrete only serving to distribute the weight on each floor.
    "What struck us – guys like Warren Jennings and myself, who have spent basically all our lives in the scrap business – we’d never seen steel this heavy, this huge, this massive. It was just unbelievable."

    - Michael Henderson, General Manager, Marine Terminals, Metal Management NE, quoted in "Stepping Through the Ashes" (p. 93)


    Below left: WTC core columns ready for recycling (top), and the rubble at 'ground zero' was mostly steel column segments (bottom).

    Last edited by voodoo101; 09-05-2011 at 08:23 PM.
    Reply With Quote

  14. #1064
    Navy-Marine Corps Team nutsy54's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2003
    Location: United States
    Age: 51
    Posts: 122,361
    Rep Power: 144444
    nutsy54 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nutsy54 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nutsy54 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nutsy54 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nutsy54 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nutsy54 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nutsy54 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nutsy54 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nutsy54 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nutsy54 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) nutsy54 has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    nutsy54 is offline
    Originally Posted by MURDR View Post
    6,349 people are idiots.
    People who believe 6,349 different people actually voted... are idiots

    Lies, deception, and fraud - It's all the Conspiracy groupies can cling to.
    Sad little troll
    Reply With Quote

  15. #1065
    Banned Bsip's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2011
    Age: 29
    Posts: 305
    Rep Power: 0
    Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10)
    Bsip is offline
    Originally Posted by voodoo101 View Post
    It was 60 stories tall (600 feet,) half the height of the towers. It wasn't "small." If it didn't go down in piece it there would have been a 600 feet (two football fields) long piece of core crashed across buildings in lower Manhattan. But you can see it starts to tip to the side then that momentum is arrested and it goes straight down like it was swallowed by the ground, which it obviously was not.

    You are right that is more than a 6-foot sway, but are you saying it cracked free of the foundation? If it did then where did it fall? There was no 600 foot section of core.


    here is the video again for reference. What happened to the "pancake" theory? What is "pancaking" this 60-story core structure down at free-fall speed? Nothing. It is being demolished from the bottom up, traditional demo pattern.
    It didn't go down in pieces, but was reduced to said pieces upon impact with the ground/rubble. It's obvious there's not much left holding it together.

    Also, saying that it was demolished from the bottom up simply makes no sense. How could you look at the collapse and determine that it didn't originate at the point of the aircraft impact? What bottom-up demolition would achieve this feat, do tell?
    Reply With Quote

  16. #1066
    Banned voodoo101's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2009
    Age: 63
    Posts: 5,622
    Rep Power: 0
    voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000)
    voodoo101 is offline
    Originally Posted by Bsip View Post
    It didn't go down in pieces, but was reduced to said pieces upon impact with the ground/rubble. It's obvious there's not much left holding it together.

    Also, saying that it was demolished from the bottom up simply makes no sense. How could you look at the collapse and determine that it didn't originate at the point of the aircraft impact? What bottom-up demolition would achieve this feat, do tell?
    ok bsip, we can agree to disagree. Being demolished from the bottom up is how they do demolitions for most short buildings not in danger of tipping over and damaging property:

    Castaways:



    Top-down is much more specialized, for tall buildings which are in danger of tipping over. That's what the towers were though wtc7 was bottom-up. Have you seen Danny Jowenko one of the world's foremost demo experts (before his car "crashed into a tree" in the morning when he was going to church, like the time I need alcohol on my breath is in church...)

    Reply With Quote

  17. #1067
    Banned voodoo101's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2009
    Age: 63
    Posts: 5,622
    Rep Power: 0
    voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000)
    voodoo101 is offline
    HEY WE CAN INVADE IRAQ NOW! WTF!!

    Reply With Quote

  18. #1068
    Banned Bsip's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2011
    Age: 29
    Posts: 305
    Rep Power: 0
    Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10) Bsip is on a distinguished road. (+10)
    Bsip is offline
    Originally Posted by voodoo101 View Post
    ok bsip, we can agree to disagree. Being demolished from the bottom up is how they do demolitions for most short buildings not in danger of tipping over and damaging property:

    Castaways:



    Top-down is much more specialized, for tall buildings which are in danger of tipping over. That's what the towers were though wtc7 was bottom-up. Have you seen Danny Jowenko one of the world's foremost demo experts (before his car "crashed into a tree" in the morning when he was going to church, like the time I need alcohol on my breath is in church...)


    So the towers were a top-down demolition...except for the core which is being demolished from the bottom-down? Now I'm completely stumped Voodoo. I think all that copy and pasting of other "experts" has gotten you mixed up on your own mis-beliefs.

    This whole thread is a perfect example of how CTers ignore common sense and reach for bits and pieces of a massive event and try to create their own reality. One where Bush and the government, acting through pure evil in their hearts, have pulled off the biggest public mass murder and ensuing coverup in human history (And then at the same time they think Bush is an idiot who can't even spell his own name).

    I don't know how some people can spend so much time focusing on flat-out bullsht when the real enemy - the one we saw on 9/11 - is still out there and wiling to kill us without remorse.
    Reply With Quote

  19. #1069
    Registered User dlaliberte's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2011
    Age: 66
    Posts: 18
    Rep Power: 0
    dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10)
    dlaliberte is offline
    Originally Posted by smokeater View Post
    Yes, but how many of the CT crowd have formed their opinions based on something other than a youtube video or something they saw on a private internet page somewhere. Many have seen a bit of the CT material and basically said "well, that's good enough for me, I'm sold".
    Yeah, that fits, if by the "CT crowd", you are referring to the official conspiracy theory (OCT) crowd. And you probably know that the official conspiracy theory (the one about 19 Arab hijackers who conspired to outsmart NORAD, FAA, CIA, FBI, etc etc) wasn't even on YouTube until years later, but it got plastered all over the mainstream media. Many people sitting at home watching TV or reading Time magazine might have seen a bit of this OCT material and basically said "well, that's good enough for me, I'm sold". Just like you said. You are so right!

    So many out there cannot argue the points of a conspiracy theory, they must link to work that somebody else has done. Citing a source is fine, but not in lieu of your own ability to understand it.
    Right again. So many OCT guys are just repeating standard arguments they pick up from places like Popular Mechanics without really understanding it enough to see how totally irrelevant it is, being filled to the brim with strawman arguments, or maybe for PM, they should be called Tinman arguments. Heh!


    If you suggest a controlled demolition, thermite, or whatever then you should be able to explain it yourself.
    Damn straight. We should all know enough physics and chemistry to understand what this is all about. Anyone who doesn't, shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion, and shouldn't be allowed to refer to sources they trust. What good is trust anymore, after all?

    If you can't that leads me to question the depth of knowledge a person has on the subject.
    Exactly. What we see that passes for real understanding of these complex issues is slight-of-hand trickery, obfuscation, appeals to authority, armies of strawmen, and no end of ad hominem denigration. Very immature, except it is done with an overgrown-bully attitude, and it seems they believe they have enough resources to perpetuate their OCT nonsense as long as they want to.

    They must know it has to end some time, and the truth will come out eventually, so I don't understand what they are thinking. I bet most of them are just doing their jobs, defending what they have always believed in, not risking looking too deeply into what might really be happening, or whether their boss or leader or chief or whoever they owe their allegiance to really has their best interests at heart, or that of the country or the world. Just doing their jobs. Who can blame them?

    I don't tend to get invested in these discussions anymore, to the point where I type of exceedingly detailed explanations of why things are the way they are. Because the majority of the time my 2000 word post is met with a link to a youtube clip and a comment something to the nature of "explain that".
    How ungenerous of some people not to take the time to deal with your points one at a time, really treating them with all the respect they deserve. I encourage you to keep trying, though. Maybe find a different group of people to interact with, people who will work with you to build a mutual understanding of how we determine what must be true or false, and what needs further investigation.

    Can the 78% of people on this poll argue the merits of a conspiracy theory without linking to a youtube clip or website somewhere to do the explaning for them? In my experiences, the vast majority have not demonstrated their ability or willingness to do so. And if you can't argue your own point effectively, how complete is your information and knowldge base?
    Not sure about those numbers, but I know what you mean. I bet most people who naively believe the OCT (which might be about 50% of the US) couldn't give you more than the talking points, even if you waterboarded them, and we don't get much more than gussied up talking points from those who are actively promoting it.

    Fortunately, I don't have a conspiracy theory, and that is true of most of the people I respect in the Truth Community, so we don't have to feel pressured into making one up, despite doggedly persistent attempts to drag one out of us by those attempting to paint us as the conspiracy theorists. It doesn't matter if we don't offer a conspiracy theory, however, because they just call us conspiracy theorists anyway.

    But isn't it curious that this is mostly done by OCTers, as if they don't want to be caught having the only looney conspiracy theory? It appears they even help create some alternative looney conspiracy theories (e.g. no planes and energy weapons) just to muddy the waters and keep the naive OCT believers in the dark. And it gets more bizarre. The guys with a bona fide conspiracy theory, the OCT, deny it even is a conspiracy theory, and they turn around and call those of us with no conspiracy theory the conspiracy theorists. How crazy is that?!

    This can obviously apply to both sides.
    Wait a second. Do you think that the too-small number of us in the Truth Community might have lives and jobs, and other concerns about the world occupying our time, and we weren't all raised to think like scientists? I suppose that could be true, just as it is true that most OCTers don't have time to really figure all this out, and most don't really want to be bothered. I've even heard some say, after I seemed to be making some headway: "Even if it is true, I don't believe it." When OCT promoters embody a more advanced form of this denial, it becomes something like "Even if you think you have proof, there must be something wrong with it, because you're all just a bunch of looney conspiracy theorists." What are we going to do with irrationality so thick there is no room for awareness of how irrational it has become?

    The topic I often get a bit of a laugh about is regarding controlled demolition. Many people believe this is what happened, but few have even a primitive understanding of it. They see a youtube clip and say "that looks similar, it must have been that".
    Here I have to disagree. I would say that most people do have the appropriate primitive understanding of what they are seeing when a building comes down in free fall. That primitive understanding is what you get when you jump from some height, and experience a bit of free fall yourself. You may feel that shock of being weightless, having no resistance to slow your fall. But as soon as you hit the ground, then you learn a few more, harder lessons about action and reaction, elastic and inelastic collisions, and friction.

    And I believe people also have the appropriate primitive understanding that allows us to generalize from a large number of similar instances, usually correctly. If every time we see something that looks like a controlled demolition, we are told that it is indeed a controlled demolition, then we build a strong intuition that tells us all things that look like controlled demolitions really are. When has this intuition ever been proven wrong? Supposedly on 9/11, or so say the OCTers. ("This is an Orange" YouTube: watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk)

    Do they look into how demo is done? Do they look at the materials, how the explosives are laid out, how the trigger systems operate, how few people in the world actually have the credentials to bring down 2 100 story buildings, etc. Or have they just accepted somebody else's conclusion without doing their own homework?
    Hey, now you're talking like one of those OCTers. You're being sarcastic, right?

    Here you are making the case that we should ignore what we see, and just believe the authorities when they say something is impossible. They know better than we do, after all. Don't bother measuring the velocity and acceleration of falling buildings to determine what MUST be happening based on simple physics. Don't bother examining the debris and looking at the dust in case there might be evidence of some kind of explosives or other ways to execute a controlled demolition, because, as we were told: Why waste your time looking for something that is not there?

    Pretty funny stuff. You almost had me going there for a second.
    Reply With Quote

  20. #1070
    Registered User rsnnh12's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2009
    Age: 32
    Posts: 3,625
    Rep Power: 4010
    rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) rsnnh12 is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    rsnnh12 is offline

    Thumbs up

    Originally Posted by rsnnh12 View Post
    Voodoo, if you actually care about the truth, you will read this link. It addresses all of the problems with Schroeder's story, using many eyewitnesses to help clarify what happened, including interviews with other members of Engine 10, who were there with Schroeder, by his side the whole time.

    Cliffs are provided on the first page, but it goes in-depth on other pages. I hope you at least read the cliffs portion, and realize that Schroeder is wrong about his timeline for major points of that day.

    http://sites.google.com/site/911stories/anopenletter
    Aww, cmon voodoo. You can just admit you're wrong... everyone can see it, by simply listening to your video and then reading this site. Cmon little buddy, its ok.
    Reply With Quote

  21. #1071
    Jacques Rhott Bushmaster's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2003
    Location: Greenville, South Carolina, United States
    Posts: 42,484
    Rep Power: 270864
    Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Bushmaster is offline
    Originally Posted by dlaliberte View Post
    Wait a second. Do you think that the too-small number of us in the Truth Community might have lives and jobs, and other concerns about the world occupying our time, and we weren't all raised to think like scientists? I suppose that could be true, just as it is true that most OCTers don't have time to really figure all this out, and most don't really want to be bothered.
    And yet you registered here for the sole purpose of arguing about your "truth," didn't you. So much for not having time..
    Last edited by Bushmaster; 09-06-2011 at 05:42 AM.
    THE SPIRIT OF THE BAYONET: The will to meet and destroy the enemy in hand-to-hand combat is the spirit of the bayonet. It springs from the fighter's confidence, courage, and grim determination, and is the result of vigorous training. Through training, the fighting instinct of the individual soldier is developed to the highest point. The will to use the bayonet first appears in the trainee when he begins to handle it with facility, and increases as his confidence grows.
    Reply With Quote

  22. #1072
    Jacques Rhott Bushmaster's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2003
    Location: Greenville, South Carolina, United States
    Posts: 42,484
    Rep Power: 270864
    Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Bushmaster is offline
    Originally Posted by voodoo101 View Post
    ok bsip, we can agree to disagree. Being demolished from the bottom up is how they do demolitions for most short buildings not in danger of tipping over and damaging property:

    Top-down is much more specialized, for tall buildings which are in danger of tipping over. That's what the towers were though wtc7 was bottom-up.
    I love it. Gubmint mass murders with a conscience...

    "Oh hai guize, I want you to destroy those two 110 story buildings and kill as many people as you possibly can! See if you can do it without damaging any other property though, ok? And fukit, while you're at it, make sure everybody from Bldg-7 has had plenty of time to clear out before you bring it down. I don't want anybody to get hurt.."
    THE SPIRIT OF THE BAYONET: The will to meet and destroy the enemy in hand-to-hand combat is the spirit of the bayonet. It springs from the fighter's confidence, courage, and grim determination, and is the result of vigorous training. Through training, the fighting instinct of the individual soldier is developed to the highest point. The will to use the bayonet first appears in the trainee when he begins to handle it with facility, and increases as his confidence grows.
    Reply With Quote

  23. #1073
    Registered User jamout's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2010
    Age: 38
    Posts: 1,052
    Rep Power: 376
    jamout will become famous soon enough. (+50) jamout will become famous soon enough. (+50) jamout will become famous soon enough. (+50) jamout will become famous soon enough. (+50) jamout will become famous soon enough. (+50) jamout will become famous soon enough. (+50) jamout will become famous soon enough. (+50) jamout will become famous soon enough. (+50) jamout will become famous soon enough. (+50) jamout will become famous soon enough. (+50) jamout will become famous soon enough. (+50)
    jamout is offline
    Originally Posted by dlaliberte View Post
    Here is what the NIST final report on building 7 actually says:



    Read it again carefully and note that there is no mention of the south face or the penthouse in this version of the three stage collapse. So should we conclude that NIST believed the penthouse and south face did not collapse at all, or that they collapsed before or after these three stages? Or maybe something else happened.

    So does NIST believe the south face, and everything else behind the northern facade, collapsed before the northern facade did, as you seem to believe? Is there anywhere in their report where they say that? I couldn't find it, but maybe you can. You can get the report at www nist gov /manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610

    It seems clear that the correct interpretation of this part of the report is just that the measurements of the north face falling showed that there was free fall occurring at least for this portion of the building during their "Stage 2".

    I also couldn't find anything in the report about seeing sunlight *through* the windows. If you are talking about brief moments where there is a flash of light in a couple windows, you'd have to prove those weren't reflections, and were not due to explosive flashes.
    The three stage collapse is only for the norther facade.

    Note fig 5-202 and 5-203 in the report. They show the building 9 seconds after the initiation of collapse. The penthouses are gone, but the northern facade still stands. Note the light in the upper left corner.

    Fig 8-4 shows daylight visible through windows. NIST labels it as such.
    Reply With Quote

  24. #1074
    Registered User FatAli's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2010
    Location: United States
    Posts: 1,955
    Rep Power: 1764
    FatAli is just really nice. (+1000) FatAli is just really nice. (+1000) FatAli is just really nice. (+1000) FatAli is just really nice. (+1000) FatAli is just really nice. (+1000) FatAli is just really nice. (+1000) FatAli is just really nice. (+1000) FatAli is just really nice. (+1000) FatAli is just really nice. (+1000) FatAli is just really nice. (+1000) FatAli is just really nice. (+1000)
    FatAli is offline
    Currently I believe that it was terrorists who took out the towers. However, I used to think it was an inside job because of watching youtube videos. Being open minded, I watched most of the evidence being refuted. I don't remember the website, but everything that I thought was proof to show that it was an inside job, was refuted.
    Reply With Quote

  25. #1075
    Banned voodoo101's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2009
    Age: 63
    Posts: 5,622
    Rep Power: 0
    voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000)
    voodoo101 is offline
    Originally Posted by FatAli View Post
    Currently I believe that it was terrorists who took out the towers. However, I used to think it was an inside job because of watching youtube videos. Being open minded, I watched most of the evidence being refuted. I don't remember the website, but everything that I thought was proof to show that it was an inside job, was refuted.
    Great. How did they explain 20-ton steel assemblies two football fields away? And most of the steel cleanly cut and scattered far outside of the tower footprints?



    Another view of perimeter wall section:


    Aerial view of debris field before clean-up began (CLICKABLE FOR DETAIL):


    Architects and Engineers narrative of tower demolition:
    Reply With Quote

  26. #1076
    Registered User dlaliberte's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2011
    Age: 66
    Posts: 18
    Rep Power: 0
    dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10)
    dlaliberte is offline
    Originally Posted by Bushmaster View Post
    And yet you registered here for the sole purpose of arguing about your "truth," didn't you. So much for not having time..
    Me? Yes, I joined because I am pumped to get the truth out. I had a little more time over the weekend, and there seemed to be plenty of easy targets I could shoot down.

    Of course, if I have time, then everyone should have just as much time, right? Especially all of us Truthers who are all alike.

    I'm here partly to soak up the zeitgeist of the place, to mind-meld with you guys, so to speak, to figure out what goes on out in the field, and moreover, to hopefully raise a little awareness among open-minded readers about how this whole operation is going down.

    I don't really expect to get through to any of you OCT defenders, though anything is possible. Rather, there are likely to be a few of the many lurkers who will begin to question what really happened on 9/11. Over discussions at lunch today, I recognized the blank silent gloomy stare in the face of someone was beginning to think it through... wondering what if this really is true, that the "collapses" had to be controlled demolitions, and that we have been lied to on a massive scale. I asked him, and he laughed and admitted as much. I can't see the faces of readers here, but it would be great to learn that a few of you recognize that same glimmer of awakening in yourselves.

    Finally, I was thinking more about what the advanced form of naive denial is for active OCT promoters/defenders/apologists. It seems to me that you really must know that we are telling the truth, because you have to be very crafty in how you work around it, obscure it, denigrate it with lots of creativity (very funny play on the Lord of the Rings, by the way), etc. So your rational for doing this, knowing enough of the truth so that you can actively subvert it, must be something like this:

    "It doesn't matter if you know some of the truth, because we can create whatever 'truth' we want to, and we are doing it for a higher purpose."

    Hmm, that sounds familiar. Oh yeah: tumblr /tagged/republican+mythology
    Reply With Quote

  27. #1077
    Registered User 97srad750's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2003
    Location: South Carolina
    Age: 45
    Posts: 4,787
    Rep Power: 2130
    97srad750 is just really nice. (+1000) 97srad750 is just really nice. (+1000) 97srad750 is just really nice. (+1000) 97srad750 is just really nice. (+1000) 97srad750 is just really nice. (+1000) 97srad750 is just really nice. (+1000) 97srad750 is just really nice. (+1000) 97srad750 is just really nice. (+1000) 97srad750 is just really nice. (+1000) 97srad750 is just really nice. (+1000) 97srad750 is just really nice. (+1000)
    97srad750 is offline
    Originally Posted by voodoo101 View Post
    See? This is what the disinfo traitors (if they are Americans) do. Smart-a$$es, this is an honest question and they give you a smart-a$$ answer to discourage discussion. This is their modus operandi. Remember, the punks think they are much smarter than you, and that America will never figure out 911. We are good for fighting wars, that's all.
    Disinfo traitors. That's funny Mr. Bojangles. You tapdance away from every piece you post that gets commented on, and move on to the next piece of "disinfo".
    Reply With Quote

  28. #1078
    Registered User dlaliberte's Avatar
    Join Date: Sep 2011
    Age: 66
    Posts: 18
    Rep Power: 0
    dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10) dlaliberte has a little shameless behaviour in the past. (-10)
    dlaliberte is offline
    Originally Posted by Bushmaster View Post
    I love it. Gubmint mass murders with a conscience...

    "Oh hai guize, I want you to destroy those two 110 story buildings and kill as many people as you possibly can! See if you can do it without damaging any other property though, ok? And fukit, while you're at it, make sure everybody from Bldg-7 has had plenty of time to clear out before you bring it down. I don't want anybody to get hurt.."
    A "New Pearl Harbor" was sufficient. See Wikipedia: Project_for_the_New_American_Century#.22New_Pearl_ Harbor.22

    "New Pearl Harbor"

    Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).

    If there really was a desire to kill as many people as possible, it seems obvious they should have waited a bit longer for more people to get into their offices, and certainly they should have hit the towers much lower, thus trapping more people. If they wanted to inflict the maximum amount of damage, causing the towers to tip over would be much more destructive.

    So why wouldn't the masterminds of 9/11 want to cause the maximum damage and death? That was one of the first questions I asked myself as soon as that second plane hit, and the answer seemed clear, that they didn't really want to cause any more deaths than necessary. That didn't make sense at the time, and I didn't understand the impossibility of the collapse without controlled demolition, but now it all makes much more sense. Not saying this implicates PNAC necessarily, but a proper investigation would seriously look into it.
    Reply With Quote

  29. #1079
    Banned voodoo101's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2009
    Age: 63
    Posts: 5,622
    Rep Power: 0
    voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000) voodoo101 is just really nice. (+1000)
    voodoo101 is offline
    Originally Posted by Bsip View Post
    It didn't go down in pieces, but was reduced to said pieces upon impact with the ground/rubble. It's obvious there's not much left holding it together.
    What "impact?" It telescopes straight down. Can five-foot wide steel beams suddenly do that? Again, it wasn't "small." It was 60 stories high, half the height of the tower. What do you mean "holding it together?" They are continuous steel beams five-feet wide. Here is another angle of the tallest remaining core beam. You can plainly see it goes straight down seemingly into itself at free-fall acceleration, which is how demolition charges are timed. Did it just bust itself apart in mid-air?:





    Originally Posted by Bsip View Post

    Also, saying that it was demolished from the bottom up simply makes no sense. How could you look at the collapse and determine that it didn't originate at the point of the aircraft impact? What bottom-up demolition would achieve this feat, do tell?
    You are making no sense here. The video we are discussing shows the remainder of the core being demolished from the bottom up. I don't know why, you have to ask the people who did it. Too bad we can't go look at the steel and try to settle some of these questions, such as was the steel cleanly cut or did it just kind of break apart as you say. But of course it doesn't strike you the least bit strange that Rudy Giuliani ordered 99.5% of the steel evidence to be destroyed, shipped to China to be melted. Why couldn't they have shipped it to aircraft hangars in Nevada or somewhere so scientists could study what went wrong no matter how long it took? This was the greatest crime in American history.

    Funny how that works, huh?

    You are working from your pre-established conclusion that the core we see was not demolished and bending yourself into pretzels trying to explain what else could caused what we are observing. But nothing else can cause solid vertical steel beams to come straight down into themselves except demo charges timed to kick out small pieces as it comes down.

    Once again also notice, clear in this view, that it begins to tip to one side, then stops and comes down, which is evidence of charges blowing at the bottom. The Law of Conservation of Momentum says some force had to arrest that tipping and stop it. A moving body tends to keep moving in the same direction unless some other force is applied.

    Last edited by voodoo101; 09-06-2011 at 02:01 PM.
    Reply With Quote

  30. #1080
    Jacques Rhott Bushmaster's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2003
    Location: Greenville, South Carolina, United States
    Posts: 42,484
    Rep Power: 270864
    Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Bushmaster has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Bushmaster is offline
    Originally Posted by dlaliberte View Post
    So why wouldn't the masterminds of 9/11 want to cause the maximum damage and death? That was one of the first questions I asked myself as soon as that second plane hit, and the answer seemed clear, that they didn't really want to cause any more deaths than necessary.
    Nothing I love more than mass murderers with a conscience.. Somebody, somewhere wanted to kill everybody, but fortunately cooler heads prevailed and decided to cut the death toll off at a mere 3,000. All in all I'd say that's pretty goddamn decent of them wouldn't you?

    Edit:

    So why wouldn't the masterminds of 9/11 want to cause the maximum damage and death? That was one of the first questions I asked myself as soon as that second plane hit,
    As soon as the second plane hit??

    What, you were able to see into the future and know how many people were going to die?
    Last edited by Bushmaster; 09-06-2011 at 03:07 PM.
    THE SPIRIT OF THE BAYONET: The will to meet and destroy the enemy in hand-to-hand combat is the spirit of the bayonet. It springs from the fighter's confidence, courage, and grim determination, and is the result of vigorous training. Through training, the fighting instinct of the individual soldier is developed to the highest point. The will to use the bayonet first appears in the trainee when he begins to handle it with facility, and increases as his confidence grows.
    Reply With Quote

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts