Posted May 27, 2011
nondeplumage
32 Bit World
Registered: Sep 2010
From United States
bladeofBG
FaceDaFaceO'Fear
Registered: Sep 2010
From Canada
slash11
New User
Registered: Mar 2011
From Austria
Posted May 28, 2011
Here is the collapse of wtc 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA&feature=related
You can see it clearly, this is a controlled demolition. That someone claims this is done by office fire is beyond me....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA&feature=related
You can see it clearly, this is a controlled demolition. That someone claims this is done by office fire is beyond me....
Lone3wolf
Kai Grandmaster
Registered: Mar 2009
From United Kingdom
Posted May 28, 2011
Re: the firefighters claims not taken seriously.
What Stephen Gregory says is he 'doesn't know if it means something.' That's not proof one way or the other. Rather, Loose Change used it as evidence of what someone had seen, and tried to put the peices together, and thus their conclusion of it being a controlled demolition. That's the conclusion I'm going with, after seeing the circumstantial evidence provided in Loose Change.
Occam's Razor. It just does not compute that this was a US Government-led attack.
Circumstantial? lol. "Loose Change" wishes they had that much so as to be called circumstantial. That's a pathetically gross over-exaggeration of the lies and distortions promulgated in that series of (often revised) videos.
Also, eye-witness testimony is NOTORIOUSLY unreliable - even in courts, they'd rather have 1 solid piece of irrefutable evidence, than any 10 "eye-witnesses". You show 100 people the SAME event, and 10 minutes later, you'll get at least 105 different versions (guaranteed a few will "remember" something different and change their story).
black, it meant that the fires were cooling down (not as hot as fire producing white smoke; this b/c black fire is indicative of a lack of oxygen). This to go w/the fact that they were burning for less than 3hrs before falling lead me to not believe the official story of the towers collapsing b/c of the jets.
The impact was one of the largest contributing factors to the collapse. It's the part conspiracy theorists like to forget when comparing these collapses with others. The impacts caused real trauma to all three buildings. (Two airliners into the towers and debris from the north tower for building 7. The building 7 impact is another one conspiracy theorists like to forget)
The towers had a number of floors destroyed from about the perimeter columns to the core. The impact sliced the aluminium aircraft into smaller pieces but the speed of the craft also sliced through the steel like butter. The impacts also spread jet fuel into the buildings. Not all the fuel was used in the fire ball. In fact, eye witnesses say jet fuel was creating curtains of fire as it poured down from the impact zone. But the jet fuel only started the fires. It was never the NIST's contention that the jet fuel brought down the buildings as conspiracy theorists suggest. Conspiracy theorists use this as a straw man. They say the jet fuel couldn't have bowed the columns and sagged trusses. Just as lighter fluid doesn't cook your meat in a barbecue, the jet fuel didn't sag the trusses or bow the columns. You also can't leave this important factor out either. Conspiracy theorists say the columns couldn't have bowed and the trusses couldn't have sagged because the jet fuel wasn't hot enough and was used up within about 15 minutes of impact. That's like saying your meat didn't cook in your barbecue because the lighter fluid burns too quickly. All the jet fuel did was act as lighter fluid and intensify the fire for about 15 minutes.
The two major factors in the collapse itself were the fires and the lack of fire proofing around the trusses and some columns. With fireproofing, the floor system was rated for 2 hours of continuous fire. Without it, that time is cut dramatically.
Engineers and safety inspectors in the building before that day regularly reported missing insulation from the structural steel - especially when winds were high (early-mid spring).
One of the BIG lies in the "truth" movement is that UL certifies steel. An ex-employee named Kevin Ryan, who worked as a water tester at UL, said "The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." He says he knows this because UL certified steel components of the World Trade Centre and that someone from the company who was connected with the UL testing told him this fact.
Now for some facts the "truth" movement doesn't tell you.
UL doesn't certify steel components like a steel truss or column. They certify assemblies. That means they certified the total assembly, all put together. They also didn't replicate the impact levels. They replicated a floor system with fireproofing as it would have been before the impact. They also tested it with various fireproofing thicknesses. The test trusses were physically undamaged and had intact fireproofing for the purpose of standard rating. What this means is that Mr. Ryan doesn't even know what his former employer does, much less what it did during the World Trade Centre investigation. Maybe that's why they fired him...
The other lie in the "truth" movement is the characterization of what the NIST said was the cause of the collapse.
1) The NIST NEVER said burning jet fuel was the cause of the collapse. Only that it was a factor;
2) If the assembly stayed together, it only SUPPORTS the NIST hypothesis that the trusses pulled the columns in;
3) The UL test caused the test trusses to sag even with fireproofing : http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6B.pdf
Sidenote : Kevin Ryan is the editor of the "scholars" Journal of 911 Studies and one of the "peers" who review their so called "peer" reviewed papers like the flying elephant paper ( http://www.jod911.com/thirdjet.pdf ). It took the "scholars" months to debunk their own paper which Mr. Ryan should have debunked himself. Something which took a qualified person about 2 minutes.
And don't get me started on Jim Fetzer's absurd claims about asbestos being used in both towers (Only one, and only upto the 40th? floor, IIRC. He claims both, all the way up, and other absurdities).
Still with me? Good, because now it gets better!
With the damage wreaked by the planes on the support columns, and trusses, and assemblies, pretty much stripping them of the majority of their fire-proofing insulation (which was threadbare to begin with), the fire only needed as little as 600 degrees C to deform the naked truss steel. Conspiracy theorists point to the UL tests which show the trusses sagged but never fail to say the building should have stood. But what conspiracy theorists don't tell you is that the test was done with a minimum of fire proofing on the trusses. The test was never meant to find out what caused the truss to fail. It was testing the fire proofing to see if it was up to code. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040829130757.htm
As the fires moved on to find new sources of fuel (Desks, seats, paper, plastic, etc..) [Pay attention to these fires spreading - because it's important for your "black smoke" later ;)] the expanded truss cools and contracts. This contraction happened over a period of time and over many floors. This is a very important point, because had it only been one floor contracting the perimeter may not have buckled as much.
If a floor sags, it pulls both the perimeter columns and core columns toward the centre of the floor. Because the core columns are stronger than the perimeter, the perimeter is the side that gets pulled in.
There are plenty of photographs from every angle which show the slow progression of sagging of trusses and bowing perimeter columns. It would be impossible for the NIST or anyone else to fabricate the photos. It was one of the most photographed and videoed events in history. It would be easy to prove the NIST is involved in a mass murder if they doctored photos. Yet this is exactly what some conspiracy theorists suggest! O_o
Further reading on the sagging of the trusses and supports : http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/1216/1/WTCpaper.pdf < really read this. Don't ignore it, or skim it. READ it. It's got some math in, so you can confirm their findings. (it has been peer-reviewed though, so don't get too exotic in your distortions ;) )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QChWMNRo3h0
If that was a demolition explosion, why is there no ejection of debris characteristic in Controlled Demolition before the event? Only after the building begins to fall do we see the debris from the pancaking floors eject outward as the floors force air out of the windows.
Look at as many videos of the collapse as you can find. They're all the same.
hercufles
euh what?
Registered: May 2009
From Netherlands
Posted May 28, 2011
wow a lot of wall of text
Lone3wolf
Kai Grandmaster
Registered: Mar 2009
From United Kingdom
Posted May 28, 2011
Edit : nevermind - recovered through form history! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Part 2 : Far too long this!
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Briefing_040505_final.pdf
Start at page 36 of the above NIST briefing. You can see photographic evidence that the building was pulled in. Not just one floor, but across many.
Note how the sagging floors pull the outer column in. There is enough visual evidence that the trusses were pulling the outer columns in. If you think a bomb blew up the building, you have to explain how a bomb pulled the walls inward well before they fell...
For a detailed account of the collapse, do yourself a favour and READ ALL the NIST FINAL reports. Any conspiracy site which gives you the old preliminary reports are being dishonest.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/
And now, to the black smoke you're all so fond of :
Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colourless carbon dioxide and water.
The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favoured by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions. If you look at the video I linked above, of the collapse (with ZERO evidence of explosives pushing debris outside), you'll see this thick black smoke pouring from a fire on the OUTSIDE wall of the WTC tower. How can that be oxygen-deprived?? O_o So, therefore, the blackness must be something else : unburned particulate matter from office furniture, and papers, mayhaps??
Wow, that run on far longer than I thought. Far longer than most "Truthers" spend dismissing anything but their distorted, malicious views.
I'll assume [silly me!] you have the intellectual honesty to actually research the rest of your "claims", because, frankly, I've got better things to do than rehash years of investigations for a few people here that can't be arsed to do anything than spout the same tired bullshit that's repeatedly, and lengthily proven to be not only wrong, but malicious falsehoods in some [not all, I'll give them that much, although some believe omissions are also lies] cases, in many places all over the internet/web.
As Fox Mulder says : The Truth Is Out There! You just have to look, and put aside your false beliefs over what idiots have "said" but not proven in any manner.
Examine EVERYTHING with a critical eye, and perform the math for yourself. You can do math, can't you?
Anything you don't understand, take to an expert (they're usually more than willing to help explain things simply - making an appointment might help, rather than just popping in on the off-chance) and NOT some schmuck without qualifications OR years of experience in the RELEVANT field. Chemists, my hairy arse, know structural engineering. :rolleyes:
Part 2 : Far too long this!
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Briefing_040505_final.pdf
Start at page 36 of the above NIST briefing. You can see photographic evidence that the building was pulled in. Not just one floor, but across many.
Note how the sagging floors pull the outer column in. There is enough visual evidence that the trusses were pulling the outer columns in. If you think a bomb blew up the building, you have to explain how a bomb pulled the walls inward well before they fell...
For a detailed account of the collapse, do yourself a favour and READ ALL the NIST FINAL reports. Any conspiracy site which gives you the old preliminary reports are being dishonest.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/
And now, to the black smoke you're all so fond of :
Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colourless carbon dioxide and water.
The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favoured by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions. If you look at the video I linked above, of the collapse (with ZERO evidence of explosives pushing debris outside), you'll see this thick black smoke pouring from a fire on the OUTSIDE wall of the WTC tower. How can that be oxygen-deprived?? O_o So, therefore, the blackness must be something else : unburned particulate matter from office furniture, and papers, mayhaps??
Wow, that run on far longer than I thought. Far longer than most "Truthers" spend dismissing anything but their distorted, malicious views.
I'll assume [silly me!] you have the intellectual honesty to actually research the rest of your "claims", because, frankly, I've got better things to do than rehash years of investigations for a few people here that can't be arsed to do anything than spout the same tired bullshit that's repeatedly, and lengthily proven to be not only wrong, but malicious falsehoods in some [not all, I'll give them that much, although some believe omissions are also lies] cases, in many places all over the internet/web.
As Fox Mulder says : The Truth Is Out There! You just have to look, and put aside your false beliefs over what idiots have "said" but not proven in any manner.
Examine EVERYTHING with a critical eye, and perform the math for yourself. You can do math, can't you?
Anything you don't understand, take to an expert (they're usually more than willing to help explain things simply - making an appointment might help, rather than just popping in on the off-chance) and NOT some schmuck without qualifications OR years of experience in the RELEVANT field. Chemists, my hairy arse, know structural engineering. :rolleyes:
Post edited May 28, 2011 by Lone3wolf
hercufles
euh what?
Registered: May 2009
From Netherlands
Posted May 28, 2011
Part 2 : Far too long this!
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Briefing_040505_final.pdf
Start at page 36 of the above NIST briefing. You can see photographic evidence that the building was pulled in. Not just one floor, but across many.
Note how the sagging floors pull the outer column in. There is enough visual evidence that the trusses were pulling the outer columns in. If you think a bomb blew up the building, you have to explain how a bomb pulled the walls inward well before they fell...
For a detailed account of the collapse, do yourself a favour and READ ALL the NIST FINAL reports. Any conspiracy site which gives you the old preliminary reports are being dishonest.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/
And now, to the black smoke you're all so fond of :
Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colourless carbon dioxide and water.
The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favoured by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions. If you look at the video I linked above, of the collapse (with ZERO evidence of explosives pushing debris outside), you'll see this thick black smoke pouring from a fire on the OUTSIDE wall of the WTC tower. How can that be oxygen-deprived?? O_o So, therefore, the blackness must be something else : unburned particulate matter from office furniture, and papers, mayhaps??
Wow, that run on far longer than I thought. Far longer than most "Truthers" spend dismissing anything but their distorted, malicious views.
I'll assume [silly me!] you have the intellectual honesty to actually research the rest of your "claims", because, frankly, I've got better things to do than rehash years of investigations for a few people here that can't be arsed to do anything than spout the same tired bullshit that's repeatedly, and lengthily proven to be not only wrong, but malicious falsehoods in some [not all, I'll give them that much, although some believe omissions are also lies] cases, in many places all over the internet/web.
As Fox Mulder says : The Truth Is Out There! You just have to look, and put aside your false beliefs over what idiots have "said" but not proven in any manner.
Examine EVERYTHING with a critical eye, and perform the math for yourself. You can do math, can't you?
Anything you don't understand, take to an expert (they're usually more than willing to help explain things simply - making an appointment might help, rather than just popping in on the off-chance) and NOT some schmuck without qualifications OR years of experience in the RELEVANT field. Chemists, my hairy arse, know structural engineering. :rolleyes:
Lone3wolf
Kai Grandmaster
Registered: Mar 2009
From United Kingdom
Posted May 28, 2011
Google searches.
NIST site
Various engineering blogs
Debunking911.com
screwloosechange.com
911myths.com
google videos
YouTube (Irony! Yes, I know, but there are a LOT of debunking videos uploaded there for ease and bandwidth concerns on other sites - ditto google vids, above)
Structural Mechanics blogs and websites.
University(-ies) engineering department sites.
Loads more. It's all out there. NIST's is fairly comprehensive, if a bit too technical for the layman. The Engineering and construction blogs provide math, and experiments and further reading sources to explain how and what happened.
NIST site
Various engineering blogs
Debunking911.com
screwloosechange.com
911myths.com
google videos
YouTube (Irony! Yes, I know, but there are a LOT of debunking videos uploaded there for ease and bandwidth concerns on other sites - ditto google vids, above)
Structural Mechanics blogs and websites.
University(-ies) engineering department sites.
Loads more. It's all out there. NIST's is fairly comprehensive, if a bit too technical for the layman. The Engineering and construction blogs provide math, and experiments and further reading sources to explain how and what happened.
Buckid
Joystick Crusher
Registered: Sep 2008
From United Kingdom
Posted May 28, 2011
Quit wasting your time.
You can link as many webpages as you like from here, just as Slash11 can link as many as he likes.
Neither of you can still prove anything. Facts can be and have been fabricated, by both sides. "Maths" are subject to GIGO when trying to prove anything and any statistic can be twisted to mislead, and last and not least: This is the goddamn internet. Any idiot can say anything they like, but that doesn't necessarily make any of it true.
You're both just as big fools as each other. Him for his baseless crackpot theories, and you for your blind faith in the obviously incomplete "official stories".
The real truth of 9/11 is most likely far more complicated and unpleasant than anything we've seen posted in here so far, and you can bet your ass that no party involved in it is clean of wrong-doing, whether that be actually orchestrating the whole thing for the many financial, political or religious benefits that various groups got out of it, turning a blind eye and letting it happen for the same reason, or just being caught completely by surprise but turning it to their advantage to wage an illegal war anyway.
Far more interesting is the stuff that came after 9/11.
I suspect that the closest thing to the truth we'll ever see will be to see who reaped what benefits from the whole thing, and to guess at their motivations and the possible influences their could have had in the whole messy affair.
It would still be a guess, but I bet it'd be a lot closer to the truth than most of the garbage we've seen in this thread so far.
You can link as many webpages as you like from here, just as Slash11 can link as many as he likes.
Neither of you can still prove anything. Facts can be and have been fabricated, by both sides. "Maths" are subject to GIGO when trying to prove anything and any statistic can be twisted to mislead, and last and not least: This is the goddamn internet. Any idiot can say anything they like, but that doesn't necessarily make any of it true.
You're both just as big fools as each other. Him for his baseless crackpot theories, and you for your blind faith in the obviously incomplete "official stories".
The real truth of 9/11 is most likely far more complicated and unpleasant than anything we've seen posted in here so far, and you can bet your ass that no party involved in it is clean of wrong-doing, whether that be actually orchestrating the whole thing for the many financial, political or religious benefits that various groups got out of it, turning a blind eye and letting it happen for the same reason, or just being caught completely by surprise but turning it to their advantage to wage an illegal war anyway.
Far more interesting is the stuff that came after 9/11.
I suspect that the closest thing to the truth we'll ever see will be to see who reaped what benefits from the whole thing, and to guess at their motivations and the possible influences their could have had in the whole messy affair.
It would still be a guess, but I bet it'd be a lot closer to the truth than most of the garbage we've seen in this thread so far.
nondeplumage
32 Bit World
Registered: Sep 2010
From United States
Posted May 28, 2011
It's like the 1970s just disappeared.
hercufles
euh what?
Registered: May 2009
From Netherlands
Posted May 28, 2011
You can link as many webpages as you like from here, just as Slash11 can link as many as he likes.
Neither of you can still prove anything. Facts can be and have been fabricated, by both sides. "Maths" are subject to GIGO when trying to prove anything and any statistic can be twisted to mislead, and last and not least: This is the goddamn internet. Any idiot can say anything they like, but that doesn't necessarily make any of it true.
You're both just as big fools as each other. Him for his baseless crackpot theories, and you for your blind faith in the obviously incomplete "official stories".
The real truth of 9/11 is most likely far more complicated and unpleasant than anything we've seen posted in here so far, and you can bet your ass that no party involved in it is clean of wrong-doing, whether that be actually orchestrating the whole thing for the many financial, political or religious benefits that various groups got out of it, turning a blind eye and letting it happen for the same reason, or just being caught completely by surprise but turning it to their advantage to wage an illegal war anyway.
Far more interesting is the stuff that came after 9/11.
I suspect that the closest thing to the truth we'll ever see will be to see who reaped what benefits from the whole thing, and to guess at their motivations and the possible influences their could have had in the whole messy affair.
It would still be a guess, but I bet it'd be a lot closer to the truth than most of the garbage we've seen in this thread so far.
Lone3wolf
Kai Grandmaster
Registered: Mar 2009
From United Kingdom
Posted May 28, 2011
lol. Math is a hell of a lot more secure than "unfounded belief" and "provable falsehoods" and whatever these "Truthers" spout as "fact". Math can also be peer-reviewed for errors so your GIGO is invalid ;)
Got anything to base those rather large leaps of imagination on, or just more mindless drivel spouted by momma's boys living in cellars?
Didn't think so.
Lack of evidence is NOT proof of existence.
Got anything to base those rather large leaps of imagination on, or just more mindless drivel spouted by momma's boys living in cellars?
Didn't think so.
Lack of evidence is NOT proof of existence.
hercufles
euh what?
Registered: May 2009
From Netherlands
Posted May 28, 2011
Got anything to base those rather large leaps of imagination on, or just more mindless drivel spouted by momma's boys living in cellars?
Didn't think so.
Lack of evidence is NOT proof of existence.
Buckid
Joystick Crusher
Registered: Sep 2008
From United Kingdom
hercufles
euh what?
Registered: May 2009
From Netherlands
Posted May 28, 2011
sorry im not a native english person i ment get rid most of the proof :)