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 )

22 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Wtc 7 And Sandero, NIST v speculation

onesliceshort
post Apr 24 2012, 11:34 AM
Post #41



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (hdog @ Apr 15 2012, 07:46 PM) *
What happened when the calculations of the FDR didn't support a pull-up at the Pentagon? The government loyalists came up with their own flight paths. Similar thing with SanderO.


Bingo.

Can't believe this thread is being stirred up again...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804012

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804024

And Elreb, you're really grating on me. If you have any accusations or proof of what you're insinuating about me just because I use a "nick", like the majority of people on this or any other forum, post it.

Or shut the fuck up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 24 2012, 02:18 PM
Post #42





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Government loyalist? How'dya come up with that one?

I have roundly and soundly and unequivocally criticized the conclusion of NIST and FEMA and the 911 Commission Report. I have gone so far as to call their work a cover up of what actually happened.

It's just that I don't support explosive controlled demolition as the explanation for the destruction... certainly not the collapse phase. I've said many times that the explainable by physics, science, and engineering collapse phase COULD have been kicked off by engineered devices... incendiaries or bombs... but I don't see the evidence for these causes.

In all three cases my research and best guess is that there was a progressive (over time) weakening caused by several factors which acted synergistically to drop the FOS of the core columns in the twins and the transfer truss panels of chords in B7 to below 1 at which point the structure was completely incapable of supporting the load of the floors/structure above which came rapidly down..

The twins saw the floors in the below the plane strike zone overwhelmed by the tens of thousands of tons of materials from the floors above crashing down up them and busted apart and did so progressively to till all the floors were destroyed... then the core without bracing buckled from its own weight... The facade peeled off also with no bracing. Nothing theoretical about this.

B7 saw the core plunge down through floors 6&7 where the transfer trusses were... pulling with it the outside the core floor girders, beams and slabs and leaving the curtain wall with no support and it then plunged 8 floors at FF til it hit the ground.

Kawika posted a new video taken of B7 and you can see early on in the day extensive diesel fueled fires all around the south and east side of flrs 6&7. These were the fires that cooked the t trusses. Even the engineer Irwin Cantor, I learned yesterday believes the extensive diesel fueled fires weakened the t trusses and let to the collapse (as I have described it). THIS IS NOT WHAT NIST SAID.

But since it's not a CD thesis... I am labeled a government loyalist.

Lovely. OSS... No hard feelings... Truthers are a bit paranoid at times...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 24 2012, 03:51 PM
Post #43



Group Icon

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



QUOTE
Government loyalist? How'dya come up with that one?


I hadn't read it with that in mind SanderO. I took it in reference to the campaign of disinformation against Pilotsfor911Truth and the NOC witnesses.

I think I'm the only one to have stepped back from calling you an "agent" (IIRC).

All I've said about WTC7 is that NIST have been reduced to claiming "fires and fires alone" brought down the building. That should be the point of attack and I don't see how giving them a way out a la Frank Legge and his irrelevant OCT subplot is going to help. End of story.

Edit: have to laugh though at the "truther" label in derogatory terms rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Apr 24 2012, 03:53 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Apr 24 2012, 05:03 PM
Post #44





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 478
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 22 2012, 01:28 AM) *
Kawika... your research made my day... the video and then Cantor who actually was speaking the truth...

What does it take to get you guys to open your eyes and see a bit objectively.

Can't you see the massive floor wide fires on 6&7? What time of day was that? Pretty soon after tower 1 had collapsed and the mech floors are roaring hot... probably before noon.

What is your theory for those fires on 6&7?


Try again.

WTC7 video

@ mark 3:11 you can see the fires. There is no fire on 7. It is long since burnt out. There is fire on #8 moving along, according to NIST, at about every 15 minutes, looking for fresh fuel. There is no fire on 9,10, or 11. Some fire on 12 and pretty good on 13.

NIST says fire on floor 12 (framing for 13) was the start of the progressive collapse. Yea, Right! In an area where fire had burnt out more than an hour before.

These images were captured between 4 and 4:45 PM.

LOOK CLOSELY-- the thin window frames and ceiling grids are still intact. Gypsum walls with flimsy steel studs still standing. Are you trying to tell me this fire was hot enough and long-lasting enough to compromise heavy steel columns, beams and girders?--That had 2 hour fireproofing on them? Come on already, will ya?

Are you trying to tell me that the trusses, made of even heavier steel, probably 5 or 6 inches thick was compromised by furnishings? Or diesel-- which is nothing but a hydrocarbon?

In another post you claim to see black smoke from the south face. You can't see the south anywhere in this video. You are seeing the east face and that is standard office fires. There is no diesel on these floors.

Instead of making bare assertions, how about you help us get the fire load calculations and the drawings showing the furnishings for these floors?

You claim to be an architect in NYC but will you have the courage to start challenging the agencies that have the drawings? I'm chewing on these bureaucrats every day trying to dig up new information.

This post has been edited by kawika: Apr 24 2012, 05:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 24 2012, 06:14 PM
Post #45





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



You can't see but 10 feet into the building which is as wide as a football field. Yes I am saying that in the central area where the t trusses were located. the mech areas ... the diesel tanks etc... YES I am saying that the fires were much hotter.

BUT I am assuming because no one can see inside. And I happen to agree with the structural engineer on this... the diesel cooked the trusses and there's at least some visual evidence in some of that vid of extensive oil fuel fires... the very black smoke.

Your reading of the evidence is not convincing me.

I claim to be an architect? What sort of rubbish is that? I am an architect and I worked for Emery Roth and Sons in 1970 the architects of the WTC. I know Richard Roth.

I am not a fire science engineer but I did attend a seminar conference at the Christian Regenhard Center this past year where various experts critiqued NIST's fire investigation and have been communicating with a former (fired) NIST investigator James Quintierre, who is a professor of Fire science or something similar.

I am doing what I can do find out what happened... and I am presenting my findings and research and not parroting AE911T... which clearly has made numerous mistakes.

OSS:

The theory of collapse of B7 that I have proposed does not give any cover to NIST. I do not for a minute believe that office fires around column 79 or any column could lead to the collapse of B7 or the twins.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Apr 24 2012, 06:22 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 24 2012, 07:01 PM
Post #46



Group Icon

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



QUOTE
The theory of collapse of B7 that I have proposed does not give any cover to NIST. I do not for a minute believe that office fires around column 79 or any column could lead to the collapse of B7 or the twins.


But you want to add diesel fires to the mix?

QUOTE
You can't see but 10 feet into the building which is as wide as a football field. Yes I am saying that in the central area where the t trusses were located. the mech areas ... the diesel tanks etc... YES I am saying that the fires were much hotter.

BUT I am assuming because no one can see inside. And I happen to agree with the structural engineer on this... the diesel cooked the trusses and there's at least some visual evidence in some of that vid of extensive oil fuel fires... the very black smoke.


If you don't believe office fires could bring down the building, and that NIST is talking out of its rear end, why not go down that road instead of throwing them a rope?

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Apr 24 2012, 07:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 24 2012, 07:39 PM
Post #47





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



OSS,

There's an awful big difference between the fuel load of a fire fueled by thousands of gallons of diesel at approximately the same location for perhaps 7 or 8 hrs and that of "office contents" which would burn up in half an hr.

Yes heat does weaken steel. If there is enough heat... the steel DOES lose some of its strength.'

NIST was pushing sag in in the twins' trusses... and expansion of a girder which ... walked off a beam seat.

With B7 my theory is the failure of a truss panel or chord. If you fail one of them the whole truss is a goner. And the T trusses supported the core. And the 2 story T trusses were effectively a bridge over the 6 floors of the Con Ed substation.. up to floor 8. There was only the T trusses between the bottom of the core.. and the ground.. so if the T trusses went the core could drop 8 floors... 100' the same 100 feet of the free fall collapse. Coincidence? I'd say it's a damn good place to look for the "no resistance for 8 floors or 100 feet".

Are you interested in understanding what happened or are you convinced you know what happened already?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Apr 24 2012, 09:13 PM
Post #48





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Apr 24 2012, 05:34 AM) *
Or shut the fuck up.

I concede to OSS...he is correct
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 24 2012, 10:10 PM
Post #49



Group Icon

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



QUOTE
There's an awful big difference between the fuel load of a fire fueled by thousands of gallons of diesel at approximately the same location for perhaps 7 or 8 hrs and that of "office contents" which would burn up in half an hr.


SanderO, which part of this sentence don't you understand?

"If you don't believe office fires could bring down the building, and that NIST is talking out of its rear end, why not go down that road instead of throwing them a rope?"

It's no different than NIST solely concentrating on the initiation of collapse of the towers and the worldwideweb Colombos filling in the blanks. If NIST didn't say it, it's irrelevant.

Or if the NTSB supplies black box data that's "missing some seconds" and some old fart and his "friend" claim they've "solved it", it's also irrelevant. It means nothing.

Or if some keyboard commandos claim "NOC impact" or feel peeved that nobody's buying their evidence void A3Skywarrior/missile story to the detriment of real evidence, it's irrelevant.

Or if some NPTers are determined to use valid evidence accumulated at all 3 locations and throw it in the shitter because of pure ego and stubbornness, that the perps let hundreds in on the plan (we know how much the perps just love that their neck is on the line with all of those loose ends) - it's irrelevant.

Pure unfounded speculation that may buy the perps another few years of good people chasing their own dicks and writing debunk after debunk for a bunch of people who won't consider it unless it's on a 10 minute maximum Youtube video doesn't really appeal to me at the moment SanderO, so no, I don't want to hear it.

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 25 2012, 06:32 AM
Post #50





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



CD is pure speculation... as far as I am concerned and I think it is a huge diversion. I don't know what your point is. I think we have now some decent understanding of the collapses of the twins and B7 and the mechanisms are not what NIST claims.... and they are not what the truth movement claimns. I don't see that helping NIST or a diversion. But heck you can think whatever you want.

I am basically an arch chair researcher... I am not conducting experiments in a lab. I am not interviewing witnesses or those who were involved in what I feel were the decisions which led to the collapse...though I have written to Leslie Robertson and tried to speak with him

911FF (Tom, femr2, achimspok, OWE) and others have assembled the most data and in depth analysis of the motion of the collapses from the visual record. I don't see anything like that at AE911T or elsewhere. I don't consider their work a diversion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 25 2012, 09:00 AM
Post #51



Group Icon

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



Can somebody else have a go at explaining to SanderO the contradiction of cornering a body or a person with a very weak answer to a very serious accusation and cultivating more speculative doubt which actually defends the accused?

"Fires and fires alone" brought down WTC7 according to NIST.

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication...m?pub_id=861610

QUOTE
WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. WTC 7 was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an aircraft. The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event-the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections-which stands in contrast to the WTC 1 and WTC 2 failures, which were brought on by multiple factors, including structural damage caused by the aircraft impact, extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region, and a weakening of the steel structures created by the fires.
The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from the fires in the WTC towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously as they were in the WTC towers. Instead, separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.


QUOTE
Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?

No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines-or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors-could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.
As background information, the three systems contained two 12,000 gallon fuel tanks, and two 6,000 gallon tanks beneath the building's loading docks, and a single 6,000 gallon tank on the 1st floor. In addition one system used a 275 gallon tank on the 5th floor, a 275 gallon tank on the 8th floor, and a 50 gallon tank on the 9th floor. Another system used a 275 gallon day tank on the 7th floor.
Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks. NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totaled 1,000 1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with 1,000 gallons the most likely figure). The fate of the fuel in the day tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed the worst-case scenario, namely that they were full on Sept. 11, 2001. The fate of the fuel of two 6,000 gallon tanks was also unknown. Therefore, NIST also assumed the worst-case scenario for these tanks, namely that all of the fuel would have been available to feed fires either at ground level or on the 5th floor.


You're actually trying to tell me that your speculation on "diesel fires", which NIST rejected outright is going to help the cause? How??

Stop playing dumb SanderO. I've had the decency to try and thrash this out in an adult debate, please do me the favour of giving me a simple answer to a simple question.

How will your speculative claims on diesel fires and alleged structural damage to WTC7 help us?

Please don't insult my intelligence by asking if I "believe NIST". You know that's not the issue. At all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 25 2012, 11:30 AM
Post #52





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



OSS,

I presented my *theory*. It happens to align with what the structural engineer of the building stated was a likely cause: Diesel fueled fires acting on the transfer trusses. Irwin Cantor is not NIST.

All fires are not the same...

I've made it perfectly cleat that fires from office contents could not destroy even a single girder let alone the one of the massive struts or chords of the transfer truss. I also made it clear I am not a fire expert. But it seems to me that diesel fires burning for 8 hrs concentrated below or around a key strut in those trusses could fail them.

I can't do a calculation and I can't conduct such an experiment.

The fact that NIST dismisses this was explained or is explainable by the fact that NIST engaged in fabricating what amounted to a cover story. They concealed the cause and who or what may have contributed to it.

I am not asserted that Al Qaeda caused the collapse. But I did provide a scenario which showed how the plane strike might have damaged the sub station.

No one has shown a shred of evidence that the sun station transformers did not explode. On the contrary I cited a rather dodgy report that Con Ed mentions they lost a bunch of 134kv feeders beginning precisely at 0846 that day.

I've asked others to explain how or why those 13kv feeders went down beginning at 0846. Not a single answer or speculation.

Kawika posted his research of the fires at he lowest floors of the building which clearly shows the most extensive and worst fires scene are coming from the 6&7th floors and thick black smoke is pouring out.. a tell tale of diesel fires:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzi8Ull24KQ

See any similarity in the smoke? And that was only 400 gallons.

So the question is why is my *theory* such a threat to your *theory* or beliefs... or visa versa..

I suspect it is as follows.

When assemble a theory which you believe is fact based... and in the case of 9/11 part of a large conspiracy such as MIHOP all the various events MUST be part of the MIHOP. If one of the events can be shown to be a MIHOP the thinking goes that all of them were. So proving that the Pentagon was an *inside job* is a kind of proof to many that the WTC also was an inside job.

On the other hand if one can show that one of the WTC "events" was not an inside job it seems that perhaps the others weren't either. I understand this sort of meta logic.

ON yet another hand... how many hands do you have???.... it's conceivable... that something less elaborate and perhaps a combination of things can explain the events.

It's conceivable that some elements of LIHOP were at work.. that the "results" were unpredicted and went too far. And it's concievable that when the hijackings took place with some fore knowledge intel had plans on how they would change the situation to suit their own agenda... such as the hero stories of flight 93 and the faked attack of the Pentagon. It's all speculation, but there are many possibilities.

I think that if they didn't expect the buildings to collapse... and many didn't and certainly all the people who used them didn't... when they did... it exposed some design and engineering flaws decisions AND made those responsible for those decisions at least partially negligent regardless of who flew what planes in to those towers. And this was something that needed to be covered up... because

1. if they had any foreknowledge even letting the planes damage the towers would be disgusting and criminal
2. They hadn't understood or studied what could happen if they did. Think here of letting show bombers detonate none lethal devices for maximum PR for the GWOT... or the Xmas bomber... or the Times Square bomber... I can speculate the dolts in CIA and DOD had no idea the towers would collapse... that they expected a few plane hits and were going to stage their FEMA hero sh*t.... The whole thing got away from them at the WTC.

I think Shankeville and the Pentagon were DOD / CIA shows to maximize the PR impact. I don't know or understand much about the plane that hit the towers... but there were large jets that did....and it wasn't the impacts that made them fall... that was only ONE component of the damage which led to their collapses

I don't for the "inside job* perps it mattered whether the towers fell or B7 came down. Two huge towers struck... unfought fires and behemoths to be unoccupiable for the foreseeable future was more than enough PR to start their wars. I also think that killing some innocents would not bother them... but not 3,000. I think that is more than even the DOD/CIA would do to Americans. I know they dropped nukes on Japan.

My speculation is no more off the wall... perhaps less so... then the *inside job* which claims was to:

destroy pentagon accounting records
destroy enron files
destroy SEC cases
destroy financial fraud evidence
to steal gold from vaults
to collect insurance claims
to silence John O'Neil
to rid the PANYNJ of an asbestos problem
to safe the cost of taking the towers down stick by stick

Are the powers that be looking for opportunities for advancing full spectrum dominance over the states and the world? To control and appropriate energy resources and of course the population around the globe... and to assist their allies? You betcha.

Are there people (dispicable) within the US government in powerful decision making policy positions who have dual loyalties? You betcha

Are people and institutions acting selfishly" You betcha

When I see solid evidence... it must be included in the explanation of what happened. There is no solid evidence that all 81 columns for 8 floors were exploded.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 25 2012, 11:32 AM
Post #53





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I would like to see the actual reports of the fuel recovery. That quote is not evidence to me... Sorry.

Are you believing that a building weighing north of 200,000 tons collapsed and the tanks were not breached?

I have a bridge to sell you.

I also have to note how you dismiss NIST theories about fire and so forth (I do too)... bit then quote them as bastions of truth and facts without even noting how these references bolster the very NIST theories which you dismiss as nonsense.

NIST's work needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt. When they supply documents one can assume them to be not fakes... but when they create documents... such as FEA animations you can assume they are in support of their theory. And this is not unlike most of the materials truther present... not all, but most. Are you reading this David Chandler and Jon Cole?

This post has been edited by SanderO: Apr 25 2012, 12:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 25 2012, 10:02 PM
Post #54



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (onesliceshort)
You're actually trying to tell me that your speculation on "diesel fires", which NIST rejected outright is going to help the cause? How??

Stop playing dumb SanderO. I've had the decency to try and thrash this out in an adult debate, please do me the favour of giving me a simple answer to a simple question.

How will your speculative claims on diesel fires and alleged structural damage to WTC7 help us?

Please don't insult my intelligence by asking if I "believe NIST". You know that's not the issue. At all.



QUOTE (SanderO)
I also have to note how you dismiss NIST theories about fire and so forth (I do too)... bit then quote them as bastions of truth and facts without even noting how these references bolster the very NIST theories which you dismiss as nonsense.



Nope, nothing to see here. Thanks SanderO.

I may be a numbnuts on architectural engineering but I can read you like a book.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 26 2012, 07:40 AM
Post #55





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



OSS,

I am not sure what you are reading in me. I presented a theory to explain the collapse of B7. It's not the NIST theory because it involves a completely different location and different mechanism. But yes... the destruction of the structure I propose is weakening caused by heating of the steel. I also state there could be damage from explosions... transformers or even placed devices. But there is no physical evidence of this. There's only a few ways to take down a structure such as B7:

1. remove some of the axial supports... which includes cutting away at the cross section of the columns or the transfer trusses and cantilever girders supporting the columns
2. remove the beams/girders which support the floor system (floors collapse leaving the columns unbraced and unstable and then they collapse (like the core of the twins)
3. weaken the steel by heating it
4. destroy welds and bolted connections so frame loses its integrity

I do not dispute the 100' of free fall. I explain how it could occur.
I do not dispute the reports of explosions - I offer an explanation as to what was heard
I do not dispute the testimony of Jennings and Hess - I explain what they may have experienced
I do not dispute the rapid onset of collapse - I explain how this occurs as a result of FOS dropping below 1 from items 1-4 above
I do not dispute that eutectic burned steel was found -I offer an possible explanation
I do not dispute that the *metoer* was found - I offer an explanation as to how it was formed
I do not dispute the huge dust cloud seen at the end of the collapse - I explain what it was and what drove it
I do not dispute the presence of high temps post collapse in the debris pile - I offer an explanation
I do not dispute the form of the collapse largely onto the bldg's foot print - I offer and explanation
I do not dispute that office fires were not the cause of the weakening from heat - I provide another source and location
I show (thanks kawika) the finger prints of extensive diesel fires on the mech floors
I explain the inward bowing of the north face
My theory is consistent with the 60 seconds of swaying observed before the collapse
My theory is consistent with the dropping first of the East Penthouse, followed by the West penthouse
My theory is consistent with the observation that the East Penthouse dropped right down through the core in the 23 observable floors
My theory offers an explanation as to why NIST et al created a cover story - not the deception of destroying Enron and SEC files
My theory does care who flew the planes into the twins - It explains the consequences

While you may not agree with my explanation. I have accounted for all the observations.

On the other hand, the CD proponents claim that 81 columns for 8 floors were taken out by CD without a shred of physical evidence.

You don't like the theory because it means that perhaps the tower came down without CD... a consequence of a chain of events which begins with the shorting of the 13kv feeders to the sub station caused by the plane strike. And even if the planes were drones of part of an inside job...you find it preposterous that this would be the plan to destroy B7... short the feeders with a plane strike.

You want to believe that everything was planned and purposeful and nothing was accident or a consequence of something else... even something planned... like attacking the twin towers.

You want to believe that whomever planned the plane strikes intended them to only APPEAR to be what caused or led to their collapse... that the only way for those towers to collapse was with explosives.

Your refuse to accept the notion that the people who planned to fly planes into the towers didn't care of the were completely destroyed or that their collapse along with all the damage to the buildings near by was not planned but an unforeseen result.

All you guys can wrap your head around is 2.25 seconds of free fall means the buildings were CDed.

And anyone proposes another explanation is a government shill.

You're pretty transparent in your logic.

What's interesting here in the discussion about the destruction of the WTC on this site... is that not a single structural or mechanical engineer has come forward to critique my theory.

I don't know the technical background of OSS and I don't dispute the intelligence of anyone. I don't go on about aviation and avionics matters because I don't have the expertise. But not so from those who oppose and ridicule my presentations... And not a one has bothered to read the work at the 911 Free Forums. This is hardly a debate or even a discussion.

Notice how detailed the technical analysis is of the plane performance, flight profiles, avionics data and the absence of same with respect to the destruction of the twin towers by members of this forum. Don't you see the contrast?

This post has been edited by SanderO: Apr 26 2012, 08:32 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 26 2012, 09:48 AM
Post #56



Group Icon

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





QUOTE (SanderO)
I don't know the technical background of OSS and I don't dispute the intelligence of anyone. I don't go on about aviation and avionics matters because I don't have the expertise. But not so from those who oppose and ridicule my presentations... And not a one has bothered to read the work at the 911 Free Forums. This is hardly a debate or even a discussion.


QUOTE (onesliceshort)
I may be a numbnuts on architectural engineering..


Just two posts up. A very simple short post.

QUOTE (SanderO)
I am not sure what you are reading in me


That you would continue with your speculation and avoid the simple answer to a simple question.

You know what it is but I'll repeat it again (if you've read this far you'll see it - fingers crossed)

How do you feel that your OCT friendly speculation on the collapse of WTC7 will help us ignernt twoofers?

Noted that you assume I don't occasionally frequent Femr2's site, where most members ignore you there too. And from where I've actually quoted Femr2's work to counter your speculation in our former discussions.

You claim to take offence to the "government shill" accusations even though I'm talking to you with respect (annoyed but respectful), yet you don't see the hypocritical stance in branding people here "twoofers" for not pandering to your speculation.

Let's put the cards on the table SanderO.

You believe that fuel fires, structural damage and gravity brought down the towers. As does NIST.

You believe that diesel fires, office fires and structural damage brought down WTC7. Going beyond
what NIST has been reduced to claiming.

You believe that the collapses were possibly an unforeseen accident.

Now my cards. You claim not to be a government shill but you're touting the official version of events.
You may not be a government shill in the sense of Cointel/paid but you are shilling the government story.

You're even going beyond what the government stooges are claiming.

Worse still, you're preaching to people who want the same stooges forced to show their cards.

Now, answer my question SanderO. Please.





This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Apr 26 2012, 10:37 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Apr 26 2012, 12:00 PM
Post #57





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 478
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



SanderO, please stop trying to convince me you know significant details about WTC7 to be drawing conclusions.

You keep saying the substation is six floors tall. It is three stories.

You keep saying the trusses failed because of diesel fuel fires, but the tanks were underground and on the first floor core area where neither could have been damaged from falling debris.

You say transformers were exploding, but Con-Ed themselves say the power was still on until just before 5PM.

You cannot show any substation fire damage and discount visual evidence when I show you excellent video of the substation grillage along Barclay Street.

You identify the east face smoke calling it the south face.

And you can't seem to stay on the subject, continually looping back to the towers when discussing WTC7.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Apr 26 2012, 12:14 PM
Post #58



Group Icon

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



Thank you Kawika thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 26 2012, 02:06 PM
Post #59





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Kawika,

I wrote the transfer trusses were on 6&7 and there were no columns below them . OK? If the sub station was 20 feet tall it matters not because the transfer trusses had not column below them except at the ends. which is why they were used. Why are you trying to be so clever. The core area below 6&7 could not have the continuation of the 24 core core columns above 6&7... Get it? TRANSFER TRUSSES.. Why don't you ask Irwin Cantor. I am going to do it when I see him.

Genius the tanks were down there for multiple reasons one of them being the weight. But they were storing fuel which was pumped up to the 6&7th floor emergency diesel fired generators. There were smaller *day tanks* on 6&7 which likely had a pressure switch or a float switch which kicked the pumps in the basement on and up came more diesel fuel... just like at the Citgo station... below grade fuel tank... pumps fuel into your above grade Mazda.

I can't show any fire damage 20 feet past the curtain wall. I don't have x ray vision. In the video you posted there is copious amount of thick black smoke pouring from these floors and they appear to be on fire all along the entire floor... or the portion that can be seen on the video. What a lame comment. You can't show explosions either... in any of the towers... But David Chandler mis identifies debris ejections as explosive squibs.

East or south... you can see both east and south faces in one shot and fire and smoke are coming from both though the cameraman is facing west. You debunking is silly.

Since you can see and know where the explosives were placed ... pray tell... what floors, which columns. Stop the suspense... tell us your explanation of what happened.

Come on Kawika explain what happened... ya know how the demo guys went in after Larry gave them the OK... and it took 1/2 hr... get serious...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Apr 26 2012, 03:29 PM
Post #60





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 478
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (SanderO @ Apr 24 2012, 04:06 PM) *
Kawika,

I wrote the transfer trusses were on 6&7 and there were no columns below them . OK? If the sub station was 20 feet tall it matters not because the transfer trusses had not column below them except at the ends. which is why they were used. Why are you trying to be so clever. The core area below 6&7 could not have the continuation of the 24 core core columns above 6&7... Get it? TRANSFER TRUSSES.. Why don't you ask Irwin Cantor. I am going to do it when I see him.

Genius the tanks were down there for multiple reasons one of them being the weight. But they were storing fuel which was pumped up to the 6&7th floor emergency diesel fired generators. There were smaller *day tanks* on 6&7 which likely had a pressure switch or a float switch which kicked the pumps in the basement on and up came more diesel fuel... just like at the Citgo station... below grade fuel tank... pumps fuel into your above grade Mazda.

I can't show any fire damage 20 feet past the curtain wall. I don't have x ray vision. In the video you posted there is copious amount of thick black smoke pouring from these floors and they appear to be on fire all along the entire floor... or the portion that can be seen on the video. What a lame comment. You can't show explosions either... in any of the towers... But David Chandler mis identifies debris ejections as explosive squibs.

East or south... you can see both east and south faces in one shot and fire and smoke are coming from both though the cameraman is facing west. You debunking is silly.

Since you can see and know where the explosives were placed ... pray tell... what floors, which columns. Stop the suspense... tell us your explanation of what happened.

Come on Kawika explain what happened... ya know how the demo guys went in after Larry gave them the OK... and it took 1/2 hr... get serious...


The cameraman is facing south or SE, never facing west. Get a map. Familiarize yourself with the layout, streets and his entry and exit points.

When you see Mr. Cantor ask him to please show me the drawings used by the decking installer, the fieldwork drawings, the 2001 drawing. That would be a huge start. If he would assist me in making FOIL headway at the DOB that would be helpful.

I don't think his building design was defective. From what I can see, it was overbuilt. For example the infamous column 79 (floor 12) was 730 pounds per foot and then they welded two, 2" thick x 26" plates to the flanges to make a box column. Down at the lowest levels, col 79 had 5" thick side plates on it.

I've heard this nonsense about the fuel being pumped up, running constantly fueling the fire. Don't you think the system had pressure sensors on it? It was a double wall pipe so my guess is it couldn't get breached and run constantly thinking the generators were asking for fuel. Would the pumps work at all if the generators weren't running? Why would they need to be if the power from Con-Ed was still on?

Please review NCSTAR 1-9, Vol 1, Page 61, PDF page 105. If you are going to have raging diesel fires you have to have diesel being pumped upstairs. If you have power on in the building the emergency generators would not be running and thus no fuel being pumped.

Not going to get into any discussion about CD with you. I am focused on diesel fires that you assert were responsible for the collapse of WTC7. If I can help you understand that better that is my task. I want to find out what happened.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

22 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th January 2022 - 05:12 AM