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 )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Wtc Misrepresentations: New Book, Requesting Feedback

MajorTom
post May 21 2012, 12:07 AM
Post #21





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 3-May 12
Member No.: 6,812



It is a highly complex set of events. Another important feature of the WTC1 structure is that all 47 core columns had bolted connections at the exact same levels on floors 98, 95, 92, 89. This is yet another thing that both sides of the false choice forgot to tell us.

We are all left in an information vacuum and each of us is left to cope with that on our own.



Part 6 was rewritten within the last 24 hours. In it I am trying to show how Joe Average and Joe Student are the recipients of a decade of BS. The collapse progressions of the Twin Towers are misrepresented pretty much everywhere one looks, and truthers are not to blame for all the mistakes I cite within parts 5 and 6 of the book.

If you go to wikipedia right now and try to find the collapse progression mode of the Twin Towers, you will see a verifiable misrepresentation. That has nothing to do with truthers.

We are receiving incorrect information from both sides of the false dichotomy. Anyone who takes the time can verify this.
.................

Within part 6 I show that the current literature on the subject through multiple sources overlooks what appear to be the largest cascading chains of floor collapses in history, and instead describe the collapses in terms of "crushing blocks". These mistakes are not caused by truthers.





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 21 2012, 07:52 AM
Post #22





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



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 20 2012, 11:35 PM) *
I'm speculating on an explosive event within the core, the blast of which has been funneled through the elevator shafts. Possibly at a much lower location. Problem is, I don't know how this would initiate the collapse.

I'm just throwing that example of my (untrained eye) observations out there for discussion's sake.


Oh My..OSS speculates! But doesn't know how the explosive would initiate the collapse. Here is where understand the structure and the mechanism/mechanics of the collapse initiation are critical.

Yet when I propose a speculation about the collapse of B7 based on the mechanism and the mechanics of that tower I am roundly criticized for speculation and not providing bullet proof evidence... despite the speculation matching the observables. Interesting OSS. Very telling.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 21 2012, 08:07 AM
Post #23





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



I've maintained that there is a complete (almost) lack of discussion and therefore understanding of the key structural elements of the twin towers and how they are "knitted" together.

There is also no discussion of how structural failures cascade through a system by the truth side of this debate. Their conceptualization is that the structure was simply blown - slabs or cut apart - steel frame into neat pieces for hauling off. Of course there is no evidence of thousands of cut ends of structural steel and no evidence of exploded ends of structural steel. This special CD managed to destroy all connections of the facade panels... leave MOST of the core steel frame intact to as tall as floor 50 and some as high as 78.. yet pulverize 90,000 tons of concrete in mid air... AND eject some steel and speeds only explosions could accomplish. If you accept that as a plausible explanation I have a lovely bridge to sell you.

There is no logic, no consideration of the structure, or the physics. Judy Wood comes up with a space beam and others special paint on the steel to make it come apart at the splices... or special painted explosive ceiling tiles. Are these theories to be seriously considered?

Niels Harrit of nano thermite fame wrote in an email I received from him that he estimates that it would have taken 160 tons PER floor to destroy the concrete and the frame. That's a lot of NT paint to apply! Can these people be taken seriously? NOOOOOOOOOOOO! Harrit a retired organic chemists also states in several interviews that it was impossible for the towers to collapse at the speeds measured, misstates the collapse as accelerating down to the ground and parrots Chandler dis information about physics. YIKES!

When you take off your rose colored truther glasses and examine their claims they look like cartoons and Hollywood conceptions and pyrotechnics... with pyroclastic flows.. another mis characterization... but scary never the less.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 21 2012, 09:08 AM
Post #24





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (MajorTom @ May 20 2012, 03:54 PM) *
From a demo point of view, it seems important to realize that some ejection patterns may be natural and some may not be natural. It is the responsibility of those making the arguments to point that out and to make an effort to attempt to distinguish between the 2 cases. For example, the ejection from the south side of WTC1 around the 88th floor level during the collapse initiation process 10 floors above is quite strange. I have never seen anyone give a coherent explanation for it. But that does not mean that the ejections indicated by yellow arrows in the image is just as strange.

Sorry for the typos, the edit feature doesn't allow me to correct it for some reason.


As a layman, it seems to me that the collapses of all 3 buildings are UNNATURAL.

Indeed, that quality is what defines the whole scene at WTC for me. I consider myself to be in the Peter Jennings Club--as he so candidly noted, gosh, that looked like one of those controlled demolitions you see on TV.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 21 2012, 10:31 AM
Post #25





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



Amazed,

Don't beat up on yourself. 99.9999% of the observers are in the Peter Jennings club. That club is largely informed by using analogy or comparison to make sense of the world. We all do it when we don't have the technical background or expertise... which is why courts use expert witnesses.

No collapse has ever been filmed in the act... Few have seen one... and certainly no tall building have collapsed because a collapse requires structural failure... from causes such as fire, mechanical damage, and earth quake of a intense weather event or an explosion.

As most truthers have noted, building don't collapse from fire... office fires. But in the case of the twins there were other factors to consider:

The unique design and assembly of the structural frame/system.
the damage caused by plane impacts to the structural frame
the presence of jet fuel fires

So we have no personal references of seeing building collapses - we don't know what it looked like in the past. We have no recorded videos of towers collapsing EXCEPT for CDs (is that prejudicing our thinking Mr. Jennings?). We have no examples of buildings completely collapsing from office fires (not exactly an analogy) We have only one example of a skyscraper being hit by a plane - ESB and it did not collapse - but it was a different design and a much smaller plane.

And of course we have all the images of explosions on TV and the movies plus the handful of CDs to use a references.

If you add a motive ... the inside job to start wars - false flag... it further prejudices what you think you are seeing.

And when someone comes along to tell you that you may be and likely are wrong about your observations... you shoot the messenger and label them a plant, a spy, a shill for the insiders and worse. I've been there.

Thank you Tom for your eloquent presentation and hard work.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 21 2012, 12:28 PM
Post #26



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (SanderO @ May 21 2012, 12:52 PM) *
Oh My..OSS speculates! But doesn't know how the explosive would initiate the collapse.  Here is where understand the structure and the mechanism/mechanics of the collapse initiation are critical.

Yet when I propose a speculation about the collapse of B7 based on the mechanism and the mechanics of that tower I am roundly criticized for speculation and not providing bullet proof evidence... despite the speculation matching the observables.  Interesting OSS.  Very telling.


Jesus man, calm down.

As usual, it just flies right over your head. Unlike you, any speculation by me is based on observation. Tom's book speaks of looking at the events in Manhattan through different lenses. I agree 100%, though I don't fall into any of the three main categories listed. Nor do you.

And when I talk of speculation, I mean theories that are based on a desired result. Void of evidence.

The majority of areas listed below (bar #2) are areas where an architectural degree or higher knowledge of physics aren't necessary to know that external forces were at work. At the very least, they show that Manhattan  was not a straightforward case of "accident" due to an accumulation of coincidences.

1) I can't dismiss witness testimony to explosions although I accept that there were other combustibles capable of exploding. Especially when 118 of those witnesses are qualified to differentiate between the various heat induced explosions of cars/combustibles and events they described simply as "explosions". That is, unexplained sources. Within and without the building.

2) I definitely accept that there is more than one way of skinning a cat. That the term "gravity driven collapse" has been hijacked by government loyalists as somehow equating this term with an acceptance of the OCT. Of course gravity played a major part. What I can't accept is that the initiation and the progression of collapse that ensued went unaided. The very fact that there has been no acceptable natural explanation (specifically on the initiation AFAIK) after 11 years lends credence to sabotage or outside influence. Does a negative prove a positive? No. But it does mean that there is a missing element that physics and architecture can't explain, not only to this admitted layman but among genuine qualified researchers..  Wholesale rejection of valid doubts about multiple anomalies, based on speculation or simple handwaving away of what doesn't "fit" is unacceptable.


3) I can't accept speculation that the heat levels recorded at Ground Zero were the result of "office fires" smouldering in oxygen deprived areas or that the "office fires" could even survive a collapse that pulverized the inner part of the buildings into fine powder.

4) I can't accept speculation that molten metal seen falling from the south tower and witnessed during the Ground Zero clear up post collapse were the result of "office fires". Especially when the area from where the molten metal was seen dripping happens to be at one of the main areas where initiation of collapse apparently occured.

5) I can't accept speculation that the eutectic material found among the sparse evidence shipped off can be put down to some freakish natural reaction in all of the chaos of the collapses. Especially when there is no precedent to compare to or the "gypsum"-type theory nonsense.


And no, SanderO, I, nor anybody on any forum where you've brought up your speculation on "diesel fires",transformer explosions, "cooked trusses" or where the internal collapse of wtc7 was followed by the outer shell, have entertained it.  Because your speculation is based on no proof whatsoever. Nor observational data! 

If you want to go on a tirade, bring it into the debate section? Or you can actually have a go and point out the flaws in my layman observations on what was occuring in the area above the impact just prior to collapse.

From Tom's book:

QUOTE
"The inevitable consequence of the philosophy of "good enough" is to dump all our contradictions on the shoulders of Joe Average. If he doesn't accept being dumped on with a smile, he is then berated as "stupid" for sensing and pointing out some of these internal contradictions."


Sound familiar SanderO?

@Tom

Excellent addition regarding "average Joe". Information (vacuum) overload lol.

I'm still reading through the links. Is there one that specifically deals with collapse initiations? And do you believe that they were inevitable? Fully explained?

Cheers

OSS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post May 21 2012, 02:36 PM
Post #27





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



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 21 2012, 06:28 AM) *
If you want to go on a tirade, bring it into the debate section?

Bingo...this is like 'Groundhog Day"...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 21 2012, 03:34 PM
Post #28



Group Icon

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



I'm not going to dignify that irrelevant rant with another rebuttal.

I've been 100% respectful to Tom because he's obviously went to a lot of trouble and gone into incredible detail to back up his claims (it's a lot to go through). You on the other hand have brought nothing to the table but unfounded speculation and insults. Just look at the "bull in a China shop" lecture to the plebs that you linked to!

I've spent the last 6 weeks trawling through video and photographic footage to find evidence of these "diesel fires" because you "haven't time"! I'll be posting my findings very soon wink.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 21 2012, 07:21 PM
Post #29





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



OSS,

You have no idea of the *work* or research I have produced. I don't have a website and therefore don't publish my work... which is is a work in progress. This site does not allow uploads of PDF from my hard drive. 911FF does and I have uploaded some of my work there as well as Deep Politics.

I've also made my PDFs available to anyone who requests them via email or through a PM with an email address. I've sent my work to many people including members of this site.

Your dismissive comments aside from being insulting (something I am used to) disregards the fact that I provide susbstantive written replies to your points... which you refuse to dignify likely because you have no response. You are not a structural engineer, not a physicists and not an expert in explosives. You are intelligent person who has picked a fight with me because you don't like the SPECULATIVE theory I proposed which needs to be tested and further researched. I'm not offering proof, nor debating whether my speculation is better than your speculation.

I don't believe there is evidence in the public record which can prove what initiated the collapse of B7. If it was as I suspect a T truss failure... the T truss certainly could have been fatally damaged by explosives or cutter charges. I can't disprove it and you can prove it was either. MORE STUDY IS REQUIRED.

Aside from your (and others) vague description (speculation) that the building was CDed you have given no development (nor they) of exactly or even inexactly how this might have been done, how it was done, what sort of devices would / could have been used and so forth. You can't say this, nor the others because there is no way to know such things.

And this is why we call for further investigation.

There is no certain evidence of CD in any of the collapses. There are odd aspects to the collapse of the twins at the moment of initiation which apparently seem unlike a collapse... according to Tom... and could be the sign of explosives. I don't think anyone can go to the CD bank with that anomaly.

I have spent several years trying to explain to others that many of the things they consider to be slam dunk CD evidence are not... such as the speed of collapse or the *symmetry of collapse* or the billowing clouds or the amount of dust... or the creation of enormous heat... or the fracturing of the frame into the section lengths it was built from and so on.

There are unusual phenomena.... I can't explain them, but that doesn't mean they must be from CD.

You need to watch your manners. I am not the enemy and I am not rude, or dismissive or insulting. I hope you learn something from Tom's book... I did.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MajorTom
post May 23 2012, 12:06 AM
Post #30





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 3-May 12
Member No.: 6,812



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ May 21 2012, 12:28 PM) *
@Tom

Excellent addition regarding "average Joe". Information (vacuum) overload lol.

I'm still reading through the links. Is there one that specifically deals with collapse initiations? And do you believe that they were inevitable? Fully explained?

Cheers

OSS


Thanks. Not explained at all, that is why we are all left to guess like we are.

Many people see the case of WTC7 as the most extreme example of a void in the historic record, but I have found that the case of WTC1 is even more extreme. The description of the WTC1 collapse initiation process is fabricated. Part 3 contains the most accurate mapping of the sequence of events observed during the WTC1 initiation process available anywhere.

There is no reason to believe me. The book is written in a way that belief is not required and is strongly discouraged.

Reproduced from part 3:

QUOTE
WTC1 BUILDING MOVEMENT: INDEPENDENT MAPPING AND MEASUREMENTS OF THE EARLIEST DETECTABLE MOVEMENT THROUGH THE COLLAPSE INITIATION SEQUENCE


The collective visual record of the WTC1 collapse is examined directly and independently of all other sources, groups or individuals. The movement of the structure during the initial column failure sequence is mapped and traced back to the earliest point of detectable movement from multiple angles. Features of the initial failure sequence can be understood as a rapid succession of 7 identifiable events occurring in the following order:

1) Deformations: Inward bowing of the south face
2) Earliest detectable movement of the antenna and northwest corner
3) Earliest ejections and overpressurizations
4) Splitting of all visible perimeter walls
5) Columns fail over tilt of less than 1 degree
6) Southward sliding of upper portion
7) Dis-integration of upper portion


The NIST didn't detect the movement in #2 at all.

the ejection pattern in #3 was described incorrectly.

#4 was never described by the NIST.

#5 was described as an 8 degree tilt to the south that never happened.

#6 was never noticed by the NIST

#7 remains unrecognized even a decade after the collapses.


To see how the NIST describes the initiation movement of WTC1, please see section 2.3 of the book. Every NIST comment on the subject is reproduced there and every image they used within the reports to justify their descriptions are shown.

It is as if they are describing some other building.

Absolutely nothing described above requires belief in anything I say. Everything is observable and measurable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MajorTom
post May 23 2012, 12:14 AM
Post #31





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 3-May 12
Member No.: 6,812



SanderO writes:

QUOTE
I am not the enemy and I am not rude, or dismissive or insulting. I hope you learn something from Tom's book... I did.


I have found him to be quite the gentleman on my forum. Very helpful.

As long as people take the ability to verify as far as it can go and they know where verification ends and speculation begins, there is no need to have such problems.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MajorTom
post May 23 2012, 12:32 AM
Post #32





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 3-May 12
Member No.: 6,812



SanderO:
QUOTE
There is no certain evidence of CD in any of the collapses. There are odd aspects to the collapse of the twins at the moment of initiation which apparently seem unlike a collapse... according to Tom... and could be the sign of explosives. I don't think anyone can go to the CD bank with that anomaly.


Strange overpressurization patterns that go completely ignored. Movement that goes ignored.

What can be verified? We were never given an accurate collapse history. This is knowable.

If citizens want an accurate collapse history, they are forced to make one themselves. This is verifiable. The book was written to provide the tools to do that.


As for the demo question? It cannot be discussed outside the context of the most accurate mapping of collapse events possible.

I discuss the demo question in part 4, through the lens of what can be learned within parts 2 and 3.

It cannot be understood outside of the context of accurate mappings.


First map accurately, then approach the question of demolition. I do not know any other way to do it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post May 23 2012, 01:36 AM
Post #33





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



QUOTE (MajorTom @ May 22 2012, 06:14 PM) *
As long as people "have" the ability to verify as far as it can go and they "know" where verification ends and speculation begins, there is no need to have such problems.

Major Tom,

Nine-One-One was masterminded by “Tinker Bell”.

It is common knowledge that “Pixie Dust” contains barium nitrate.

Peter Pan caused WTC7 to magically collapse!

The Wizard of Oz was a parody and so was 911.

It was a [less than] humorous, satiric and ironic imitation of what really happen.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 23 2012, 10:28 AM
Post #34





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



SanderO

Oh, I'm not beating myself up regarding Peter Jennings' remarks. And it's interesting that Peter did not live long enough to learn what we the living and curious have learned in the ensuing 10 years.

Ultimately the choice becomes sort of digital--a 1 or a 0. That is, the buildings were brought down by CD, or they were not. Those are the only 2 choices in the end.

I agree with OSS--there are certain theories that I simply cannot accept. Yes, we all know that gravity works 24/7. So the statement that they were gravity driven is superfluous, yet those who advance the official story keep mentioning this as though it is profound information. You are guilty of that.

There is an almost infinite amount of circumstantial evidence that contradicts the official story, and anybody with an open mind and minimal amount of curiosity understands that, even if it is a layman's understanding.

Esoteric observations and subtle points have their place, to be sure, but in the end we are in the court of public opinion, and common sense has a role to play.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 23 2012, 11:42 AM
Post #35





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



Amazed... think of the *problem* like this for example.

If there was a CD.... that is someone placed devices in the structures to destroy them... they would have had to placed them... whatever they were to INITIATE the collapses. It makes no sense that some natural phenomena caused the buildings to begin to *collapse*... and THEN after... the CD devices kicked in to *finish the job*.... or as Gage claims pulverize 90,000 tons of concrete in mid air.

I would ask.. if a natural phenomena has collapsed the top sections... why CD the whole building? So I ask my CD friends to explain how the collapse was initiated by CD devices. And were they like the traditional CDs where gravity does 90% (?) of the destructive work and still breaks the frame into the sizes it came to the site in...

If B7 falls and crushes like a CD... why not let the tops of the twins finish the job? The were collapsing down from the damaged plane impact zones (with or without CD devices to bring those tops down) Was the twin design such that it was immune to the downward forces that a 15 or 30 story mass would do? I think not... I think if you hired CDI to CD the top 15 floors of a twin tower ... you can bet he would not remain in the 93rd floor expecting no damage where he was (below the CD level).

I do not dispute that there were odd things to explain. And they must be explained.

I will also point out that no one has ever seen a skyscraper or that design collapse ... so we don't have a clue as to what it would look like and what weirdness it would produce... like heat or chemical residues and so forth. It was a first and it was repeated on that day as a second!

But simply because the building was destroyed, and it was very violent... and there were sounds of explosions and materials flying every which way... and dust ejections and lots of dust clouds and heat is NOT evidence that the building was blown to bits. It's would evidence as well of a collapse.

This post has been edited by SanderO: May 23 2012, 03:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 23 2012, 06:14 PM
Post #36



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (MajorTom @ May 23 2012, 05:14 AM) *
SanderO writes:



I have found him to be quite the gentleman on my forum. Very helpful.

As long as people take the ability to verify as far as it can go and they know where verification ends and speculation begins, there is no need to have such problems.


Thanks for the reply Tom.

In between reading through the links and watching the (excellent) videos, I've gone out of my way to try and map the alleged fires at WTC7 throughout the day. There has been so much exaggeration and manipulation of footage (cropping, etc) but even on the second draft, I can see that SanderO's speculation on "diesel fires" is way off the mark. A falsehood.

I don't see such insistence on speculation being tolerated by, nor overly attempted by SanderO at FEMR's forum. So after months of back and forth comments, SanderO is playing the victim. Or genuinely feels like one.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 23 2012, 08:14 PM
Post #37





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



OSS,

I am neither playing a victim nor feel like one. I present my research and engage in technical discussions at the 911 Free Forum and have attempted on occasion in several threads on PFT to get others to see some of the technical issues and advise that many are misreading observations.

If you don't see properly... you can't understand what you are seeing and if you don't have the science and engineering background for technical observations etc... data... you likewise can't properly explain something you see... It becomes cartoon like or hollywoood like.

As for the visual evidence which might support my B7 theory I repeat for the 10th time (is it that many?)

My theory is based on the same movement observations that tom and femr2 and achimspok have reported in such fine detail. The takeaway from their movement analysis which I agree with is that the collapse of B7 was in the following sequence:

early swaying of the tower east to west for a minute before any naked eye observed motion (load redistribution in the frame)
core drops on east side
core drops on west side
floors cave in after core drops
curtain wall descends
North face (non structural curtain wall) shows inward bowing suggesting no structure behind it.

My theory then suggests that the core failure took place below floor 8... where NOBODY HAS PICS or VIDS especially of the core. Kawika posted one vid which shows... black smoke from the approximate region on the LEE side (south) for a few frames. Not conclusive but not explained either by anyone.

My theory attempts to explain the Jennings Hess explosion experience as electrical or electrical caused explosions related to power equipment on floors 4,5 6 or 7... tied to the Rodriguez experience of sub basement explosions in WYC 1 where there were transformer and electic relays and switches for the electric mains

My theory is supported by the Con Ed after report of power loss of 8 -13.8 kv feeders beginning at the moment the plane hit WTC 1... coincidence? Or did those downs/ shorts/ caused heat/ explosions and so forth.

My theory attempts to attribute the core failure to a failure of the T trusses on 6&7 which supported the core and the cantilever girders which supported the north wall columns where the inward bowing is seen when the curtain wall descends.

My theory of T truss failure is exactly what the building's structural engineer claimed caused the collapse... diesel fires destroying the T trusses.

Yes NIST denies diesel fires and Con Ed the same... We've seen little to no solid reports on what happened to the the sub station or the 20,000 gallons of diesel fuel. Con Ed not only sold the air rights to the PANY to build B7 over their sub station, but approved the emergency center, its fuel reservoir which was placed next to the sub station.

B7 had no basements where heavy electric power equipment is usually placed. It was instead placed above the sub station on flrs 4&5. It was another but smaller series of sub stations and above them on 6&7 were the power generators fueled by diesel supplied with lift pumps via piping which passed up through/adjacent to.. the Con Ed sub station and the building's sub station to 6&7.

Virtually ALL camera positions (fixed) were to the north because the south was the collapsed WTC. The south was also the lee side where the smoke was emerging... but little documented except for some camera positions on West Street. The Kawika link was from a roving newsman and mostly from the EAST side.

My theory is a speculation. It does not rule out explosives, but I claim there is no solid evidence of them and supplied another explanation. It is not what NIST said.. it is not office fires. it is my theory/speculation. It needs to be investigated. Saying that there are no vids or that NIST and Con Ed said something is not evidence I will accept to prove anything. The power downs are demonstrable and provable facts... the statements that they recovered diesel and there were no diesel fires are not.

NIST office fire theory gets diesel off the hook and those who were involved in putting it there - Con Ed, PANY, Giuliani, design engineers etc. None of them would self incriminate and are pleased as punch with the OCT. Note that Cantor the engineer shuffles the blame not for his engineering, but for the placement AFTER he designed the towers on the diesel tanks and the OEM center.

I can't prove my theory with the public record. Perhaps further investigation can fund such evidence.

I don't know of femr2's forum and so I don't post there. I've communicated with him and received some data from him for my analysis of the twin towers. I think his work is stellar, as is Tom's and achimspok's along with OneWhiteEye, the administrator of the 911FF. Enik has done incredible FEA and animations. These are the core of the premiere technical researchers about the collapse of the three towers. The only truther who posts at the 911FF regularly is Szamboti and his technical knowledge is laudable. He's made some major boners with his "missing Jolt" paper.

I am what I am... and it's not an infiltrator, disruptor or spy.

This post has been edited by SanderO: May 23 2012, 08:18 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post May 23 2012, 10:03 PM
Post #38





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



It is in this video one will find the true answers to the demolition of the two towers, IMHO!





Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post May 23 2012, 10:29 PM
Post #39





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



And i can't see any harm in now and then re-visiting Ryan Dawson's 6 video sequences!

Here's the first one:





Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MajorTom
post May 24 2012, 11:58 AM
Post #40





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 3-May 12
Member No.: 6,812



Another glimpse of that knuckle



What are we to look for?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: 9th December 2019 - 06:08 PM