IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The Low-tech Destruction Of Wtc: Who Deserves The Most Credit?, 5 Major "Groupings" Have Made Genius Discoveries;I Just Connec

Pablo
post Aug 28 2013, 05:38 AM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 29
Joined: 26-March 11
Member No.: 5,760



This "Thread" was/is inspired by the efforts of people/groups like:
1 ) Many of the early 911 anti-OCT investigators, especially Dave McGowan for “discovering” Inside Job;

2) The LetsRollForums for "discovering" the Hollow Towers;

3) PilotsFor911Truth for "discovering" what couldn't have happened with the OCT planes;

4) the911forum for "discovering" the post-initiation key dynamic: ROOSD;

5) Architects & Engineers For 911 Truth (& friends) for “discovering” High Tech clues;

I've been mostly lurking at all of the above mentioned sites for years; including having started on 912, the day after 911. Because of my previous political understandings; I was 99% sure it was an inside job from day 1 (post 911).

The information in this thread first started appearing (was posted by me) at "the911forum" yesterday.

If you'll bare with me: I'll transfer my 3-4 posts here; and then everybody can "fire away" with their analysis.

Hopefully, we can all proceed, as I am trying to, from the perspective of:
Initial Unity, PLUS debate, = Unity (once again; hopefully a (much) higher level of unity)

This post has been edited by Pablo: Aug 28 2013, 05:40 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pablo
post Aug 28 2013, 05:42 AM
Post #2





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 29
Joined: 26-March 11
Member No.: 5,760



This is a copy my first post along this line of thinking at "the911forum". First the title; then the entire post:
Enough Heat (intensity and duration) To Weaken Enough Steel?

But was there really enough heat for long enough time over large enough areas simultaneously to really weaken enough steel?

After the first 5-10 minutes all the jet fuel would have burned off. After that what was left was just burning office materials - which should have produced short-lived, very low-intensity fires that would mostly have been far enough below each floor's ceiling so that little heat would have transferred to the steel. (Certainly the concrete floor slab would have sufficiently insulated the underlying pan and other steel further below it, no?)

Most of any steel that would subsequently been exposed to those weak fires would have had fire-proofing; and any steel that lost its fire-proofing would have had lots of ability to damp the heat away to other parts of the structure.

Additionally, the already heated steel would have to fail enough to stress enough of the remaining structure while the short-duration fires moved on to other places "in the right order" to accumulate enough cumulative lowering of the overall FOS.

Given that these were relatively "cold-burning" fires and of very short duration (assuming NO artificial addition of more fuel / destructive agents); I just don't get how they could "overwhelm" all of the following:
a) the building's remaining FOS (after the first 5-10 minutes of post plane-crash jetfuel-burn);
b) the insulation that still covered and protected most of the steel;
c) the huge heat-sink for all the steel that, at some point, lost its insulation; and
d) that once any previously burning area stopped burning, the slightly-weakened steel would relatively rapidly re-gain most of its lost strength.

So, my problem is seeing where/how enough heat could be generated to weaken enough steel over a large enough area to progressively undermine the overall FOS WHILE lots of previously slightly heat-weakened steel was cooling and regaining back a large percent of its temporarily lost carrying-capacity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pablo
post Aug 28 2013, 05:45 AM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 29
Joined: 26-March 11
Member No.: 5,760



Here is my 2nd post, along this line of thought, over at "the911forum"; again Title; then the entire post:

HEY EVERYONE: ARE THERE REALLY ONLY 2 POST-CRASH+BURN OPTIONS

Ozeco wrote: "Your comments are strictly off topic..."
A minor point first: Ozeco raised the matter of my post above being "strictly off-topic"; but SanderO's post BEFORE mine was MOSTLY off-topic; and, I was responding to that.
Additionally, GIVEN THAT THE GREAT MAJORITY OF RECENT POSTS HAVE POSITED FIRE-HEAT AS THE KEY FACTOR PRODUCING THE "CASCADE-EFFECT", that weakened each of the twins to below their overall FOS; then the question of "Was there enough Fire-Heat?" is completely germaine, on-topic, specifically in relation to the core columns.
--------------
Pablonovi wrote:
"But was there really enough heat for long enough time over large enough areas simultaneously to really weaken enough steel?"
Ozeco continued: "... however a brief response:
Actually it is self apparent that there was "enough heat...etc" provided we approach the logic from a sensible direction.
Put simply there are only two options to explain the Twin Towers collapses on 9/11. They are:
1) Aircraft impact damage plus accumulating damage from unfought fires OR
2) Aircraft impact damage plus accumulating damage from unfought fires PLUS some nefarious additional human activity AKA "CD".

The options for WTC7 are similar except no aircraft impact. And there has never been a plausible argument to prima facie standard supporting CD.

Engineering analysis shows that there was no need for CD so you have two valid ways forward for any discussion:
A) Accept the engineering analyses; OR
B) You prove CD." [END Ozeco quote]

There is PLENTY WRONG with Ozeco’s supposed "logical" analysis. I hope all readers/posters here pay attention to this! Let's repeat the first part, with my bolding so as to focus in tightly on the key parts to Ozeco's ILLOGICAL argument:
Ozeco said, "Put simply there are only two options to explain the Twin Towers collapses on 9/11. They are:
1) Aircraft impact damage plus accumulating damage from unfought fires OR
2) Aircraft impact damage plus accumulating damage from unfought fires PLUS some nefarious additional human activity AKA "CD"." [END Ozeco quote]

OZECO FAILS BIG-TIME AT LOGICAL THINKING
People, please think about this. Does everyone agree with this BOLD (and bolded by me) statement that there are only two options??? Keep in mind that, in his "2) ... AKA 'CD' " Ozeco implies (without quite stating it here (or elsewhere)) that ANY "CD" would be easily detectable. BUT there exist many nefarious building-weakening human activities that are not necessarily standard CD types of things; and that wouldn't necessarily be (easily) detectable afterwards (especially within the chaotic wreckage).

PANY-NJ LOST THE ASBESTOS LEGAL CASE; THE TWINS HAD TO BE TORN DOWN! =TERROR-INSURANCE!
Keep in mind further that the Twin Towers HAD TO BE TORN DOWN! A ten-year long asbestos legal case had been lost by the P.A.N.Y.-N.J. in May 2001. The expense of legally tearing them down and then rebuilding them was prohibitive. THEY KNEW, before May 2001, that if they lost the case (and they must have been pretty sure they would lose; the buildings were full of absestos); that they'd need an alternative manner of bringing the Twins down. THEY MUST HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS. THE ONLY ANSWER to this monster financial dilemma was a "gift-from-God", "surprise, out-of-our-hands" -type destruction; the destruction-due-to-terror was the "perfect" answer. What a surprise (NOT) that 2.5 months before 911, they were insured against specifically that! They would have studied the Twins hard looking for any and all critical weaknesses; and they would have pre-911 weakened them.

THE POST-CRASH FIRES WERE RELATIVELY INSIGNIFICANT; SO SHOULD NOT HAVE CONTRIBUTED MUCH
Remember also, that firemen DID reach the fire zones and reported that there were very small, easily fought fires; and called for small amounts of fire-fighting lines. Further, from outside the buildings, fires appeared small and oxygen-starved. THIS IS IMPORTANT.
And remember other much greater fires did NOT collapse any floors at all: example: Madrid Tower (raging inferno completely un-fought, involving 10+ floors for iirc 38 hours with ZERO collapse floors, much less a “cascade-failure”).

THERE ARE A LOT MORE THAN JUST 2 LOGICAL POSSIBILITIES
Can any of you the911forum readers think of any other logical possibilities? I would hope so. Right off the bat I can think of a number of others, (in no way is this a complete list); for example:
Besides Ozeco's "only 2 possible options":

1) PLANE + FIRES

2) PLANE + FIRES + CD
But what about:

3) THE TWIN TOWERS HAVING BEEN IN-COMPLETELY BUILT TO BEGIN WITH. (It is NOT a logical impossibility, that at the time of their construction, the Twin Towers were in-completely built; all they would have had to do was (re-)design them to be incomplete while still maintaining a FOS was greater than 1.0). Could this be why they tried so hard to hide the construction plans?

4) POST-CONSTRUCTION BUT Pre-911 STRATEGIC WEAKENING of each Twin Tower (while maintaining their overall FOS above 1.0) (removal of at least some % of the office contents; removal of some % of the floors; removal of some % of the core columns; or some combination of all of the above). REMEMBER: If the Twin Towers's FOSs could have been raised by reducing their weight partially but significantly by being Hollowed-Out (like office contents, concrete floors, etc.); then some more important structural components could be removed and still the FOS would be > 1.0.

5) (Further) WEAKENING OF EACH TWIN TOWER ON 911 ITSELF: (before and/or after the plane crashes) in ways that are NOT usually thought of as CD's.

6) SPECIALLY PREPARED, MORE-DESTRUCTIVE PLANES: That IF there were indeed planes that struck the Twin Towers they were probably NOT the official planes/flights; but instead specially prepared planes (which would then have very possibly carried additional fuel; destructive materials). Remember, there are many serious anomalies with the OCT (Official Conspiracy Theory) in regards to the planes. (2 were not even scheduled to fly that day; the other two were recorded as still flying after their supposed crashes; the WTC Twins were extremely difficult targets, even for expert commercial-airliner pilots (much less the OCT-amateurs); one of the two hits was impossibly “near-perfect”; for flying so low, one Tower-crashing flight was right at maximum speed and the other was well OVER speed (and should have self-destructed).

7) OTHER NON-STANDARD CD-TYPES OF ATTACKS: i.e., NOT using explosive-type devices; but instead DEW (Directed Energy Weapons). NOTE: I do NOT at all believe that DEWs were used. BUT, their use is NOT a logical impossibility; and their use would NOT be what anybody would usually classify as a CD.

8 ) Nukes/Mini-Nukes: I likewise do NOT believe either of these were used; so while I think the chance that they were used is very low; I believe that the possibility is many times higher than DEWs.

9) BOLT-LOOSENING/REMOVAL: Compared to every kind of CD I'm aware of; this would NOT qualify as necessarily CD; but it could have contributed to the Twin Towers' destruction. Perhaps, pre-911, more bolts were introduced (replacing welds) and/or perhaps many/all the existing bolts were "un-screwed".

10) ADDITIONAL QUANTITIES OF (NON-STANDARD CD-TYPE) FUEL(S) WERE PLANTED IN THE TWINS: There were (perhaps many) empty floors in the Twins on 911. It would have been relatively easy to plant/store additional quantities of fuel(s); including kerosene to produce more and long-lasting fires.

11) ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF OXYGEN: Tanks, lines and/or pumps of Oxygen could have been pre-911 planted in the Twins to keep fires going longer and much hotter.

12) FURNACES: Furnaces could have been strategically placed, particularly near the core columns (with relatively easy access thru the elevator shafts to do this). Post-destruction detection of such furnaces could have been avoided in a variety of ways.

13) COMBINATIONS OF VARIOUS NON-STANDARD-CD-TYPE, EASILY MADE-UNDETECTABLE-ENOUGH (remember the clean up was camera-restricted; and super-controlled and hurried).

GET THE POINT, PEOPLE? And I am NO EXPERT in any of this. Given enough people and very little time; I bet a list of 50 or more truly Logical-Possibilities could be developed.
AND, that some combination of them, could both have accomplished the Twins destruction AND that matches the available video and photo evidence.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF SOME SIMILAR SCENARIO FOR “the911forum”
NOTE: In NO WAY am I calling into question the extraordinary quality of the collection and technical-analysis of the video and photographic evidence that has been done/accumulated, particularly by the911forum members (such as femr2, achimov, MajorTom and others). (First, I DON’T have sufficient visuals-analysis skills to be qualified. Second, all this thinking here is brand new for me (too). IF, as I believe is the case, that I have re-opened people’s minds; who knows where the previous analyses will go?)
For example, suppose that the perps discovered what “the911forum” has discovered; that the Twin Towers would be quite susceptible to a 3-phase post-initiation collapse/destruction: ROOSD, then exterior walls, then Core. All they would have had to do was get the pre-collapse-initiation set up so that it met a minimum of 3 do-able conditions:

3 KEYS TO AN UNDETECTED ROOSD-INITIATING SET-UP:
A) A COMBO SUFFICIENT TO INITIATE ROOSD DOWN ALL 8 SIDES: (followed inevitably by the perimeters and cores);

B) THAT WOULD PRODUCE VIDEO/PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS PRODUCED; i.e., visuals that would mislead most honest investigators; and lead the rest of them to similar conclusions to what the911forum’s investigators have come to (= NOT impossible to do);

C) THAT WOULD LEAVE BEHIND A MINIMUM OF EVIDENCE OF THAT ROOSD-INITIATOR SET-UP; AND THAT WOULD BE FURTHER COVERED-UP THRU A SUPER-TIGHTLY CONTROLLED CLEAN-UP: ensuring that most/all of any “surviving” “ROOSD-initiators” would be unrecognizable and/or hidden from view, and taken off-site and then destroyed.

Please notice that I am NOT opposing ROOSD. Instead I am not only supporting it; but making it stronger. First, because I offer various ways the perps could have specifically-designed a set up to initiate "ROOSD" through pre-weakening the structure and/or removing: floors and/or office contents. Second, because "ROOSD" thus becomes more sure to succeed. Third, because this helps explain the why of so little post-destruction visible/findable contents.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pablo
post Aug 28 2013, 05:48 AM
Post #4





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 29
Joined: 26-March 11
Member No.: 5,760



Here is my third post, in that same line of reasoning, at "the911forum". Again Title first, then entire post:

THE LOW-TECH DESTRUCTION OF WTC: Who Deserves The Most Credit?

THE LOW-TECH DESTRUCTION OF WTC: Who Deserves The Most Credit?
IF I have contributed anything towards solving the incredible jigsaw puzzle that is/was the WTC destruction; I would deserve a small part of a small part of the credit.
But then who would deserve credit?

1 ) Many of the early 911 anti-OCT investigators, especially Dave McGowan for “discovering” Inside Job;

2) The LetsRollForums for "discovering" the Hollow Towers;

3) PilotsFor911Truth for "discovering" what couldn't have happened with the OCT planes;

4) the911forum for "discovering" the post-initiation key dynamic: ROOSD;

5) Architects & Engineers For 911 Truth (& friends) for “discovering” High Tech clues;

6) I, Pablo, for seeing how all these seemingly totally-contradictory puzzle-pieces could fit together.

PLEASE CONSIDER:
IF the perps were part of the US Government PLUS the PANY-NJ; then they would have to BOTH:

A) Destroy the Twin Towers AND

B) Appear NOT to have done so.

A1) Why destroy the Twin Towers?
Because they needed to be destroyed (asbestos, corrosion, already 30 years old, etc.)

A2) Why destroy the Twin Towers on 911?
Because it would have cost far too much to disassemble them, remove the asbestos and rebuild them. AND, their destruction could be blamed on outside-Terrorists; and a huge insurance pay-out could be collected.

B1) How could they appear NOT to have done so?
By hiding their method in plain sight! Any High-Tech Produced Destruction would probably be impossible to completely conceal; and any evidence at all that it was for sure High-Tech would implicate them exclusively.

So they used a whole combination of Low-Tech means to Produce The Destruction. (The exact mix of Low-Tech “ingredients”, while a very interesting research project; is NOT the key, at all.)
But to hide that Low-Tech Destruction, they completely sprinkled the crime scene with High-Tech clues!

HOW MUCH CREDIT DO EACH OF THESE “GROUPINGS” NOT DESERVE: THEIR “MISTAKES”:

1 ) Many of the early 911 anti-OCT investigators, especially Dave McGowan STOPPED SHORT;

2) The LetsRollForums for "over-emphasizing" the Hollow Towers;

3) PilotsFor911Truth for not pushing enough to discover what the non-OCT planes did do;

4) the911forum for shifting from “Inside Job” to “Outside Job”;

5) Architects & Engineers For 911 Truth (& friends) over-emphasizing the High Tech clues;

6) I, Pablo, for taking so long in seeing how all these seemingly totally-contradictory puzzle-pieces could fit together.

WHAT WAS/IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF EACH’S CONTRIBUTION (despite their “mistakes”); OR
HOW I WAS ABLE TO SEE HOW ALL THE PIECES GO TOGETHER:

1 ) Many of the early 911 anti-OCT investigators, especially Dave McGowan for “discovering” Inside Job: No “Inside Job” = no chance to discover how the real perps did it.

2) The LetsRollForums for "discovering" Pre-Weakened, Partially-Emptied Hollow Twin Towers:
No Hollow Towers = no chance to realize “how easy” the 911 Twin Towers’ destruction was.

3) PilotsFor911Truth for "discovering" what couldn't have happened with the OCT planes:
No realization of the OCT planes being faked = No realization of “destructo” replacement planes.

4) the911forum for "discovering" the post-initiation key dynamic: ROOSD +Perimeter Peel +Core Buckle:
No realization of this sequential dynamic = no realization of the real perps’ cover-up needs.

5) Architects & Engineers For 911 Truth (& friends) for “discovering” High Tech clues:
No realization of High Tech clues = no realization of how High Tech clues covered up the real means.

6) I, Pablo, for seeing how all these seemingly totally-contradictory puzzle-pieces could fit together:
No realization that all these puzzle-pieces must somehow fit together = more lost time confused.
In the face of the truly “genius” discovers of the first 5 “groupings”; how much credit do I deserve?
I don’t know. Maybe 1%? (Afterall, if I didn’t do it; eventually somebody else would have).
---------------------
My fourth post was a very short note saying:
"I've just posted the above post; and then I saw the Ozeco posted before me.
The one thing I must agree with him is that this stuff needs/deserves its own thread.

Would OWE or one of the other mods please set this up.
Perhaps it could be called, "THE LOW-TECH DESTRUCTION OF THE TWIN TOWERS?" "
----------------
So, that's what I've "come up with so far". Be my guest ...

This post has been edited by Pablo: Aug 28 2013, 05:50 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pablo
post Aug 28 2013, 07:01 AM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 29
Joined: 26-March 11
Member No.: 5,760



btw,
I just started posting at P4T yesterday. I could have sworn I posted something a good while back. But I guess not; old people and that sh_t for memories! I guess I kept getting inspired to post something; but never actually did do that. There's certainly been a huge amount of worthy stuff here to comment on.

So, having just started this topic/thread; I have no doubt that I've made a number of technical mistakes in regards to the "style" of my posts. For example: I didn't know (still don't) how to post additional posts; so I used the "reply" button. But, of course, that makes it looks like the topic/thread is getting more replies than it really is. I have no idea IF there's a better way to do that; and, if so, what it would be.

So, sorry for a probably bunch of little/style-type errors.
I'll try to do better next time (if there is one).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Aug 28 2013, 08:46 AM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Excellent points Pablo!

Low tech pre-weakening is most definitely a consideration. It would explain a lot.

If you look in the WTC7 section you'll find a couple of threads that are "outside the box" on the form of possible CD used.

You dom't need loads of "normal" demolition type devices when you can tinker with the structure and use the architecture itself to create stages of collapse. Kick the feet out from underneath so to speak. The lower attiums of WTC7 are one example. The heavy mechanical floors are another.

Office fires did jack sh*t.

Welcome to the forum mate!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd October 2019 - 10:46 PM