IPB




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

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

22 Pages V  « < 6 7 8 9 10 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Wtc 7 And Sandero, NIST v speculation

elreb
post May 5 2012, 03:53 AM
Post #141





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



This is a good start my friends...

You come to Maui...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 5 2012, 07:54 AM
Post #142





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



OSS,

You can't have it both ways. That is to say, you can't quote FEMA and NIST as reliable, honest, sources of correct technical information when it's convenient for you *case* and then turn around and call their work deception, lied a cover up and so forth.

I pretty much consider that the official material amounts to a *cover up*. As such it includes aspects of the *truth*, omission of it at times, fabrication of facts *disinformation* or mis information. The sum total of their technical explanation is not correct for the collapse of the towers. The Truth movement people have done a good job of parsing the work of NIST and FEMA.

Well you can have it both ways.... if you can identity which statements of NIST and FEMA are fact and which are fiction.

We can't know WHY these organizations have produced the reports they did.. considering the technical expertise they had and the resources available to them... and their resistance to share information with the public with lame excuses. It appears to be almost a given that they would produce reports consistent with the OCT and the policies which were adopted in the wake of 9/11. A sort of *the fix was in* approach we have come to see (and expect) when those in high places might be guilty of misconduct, of gross negligence and so for forth. We see it all the time at many levels from prosecutorial misconduct to high botched police work... where innocent people have been executed even. Were these cases examples of covering incompetence of something else? We've seen those responsible for the financial disaster not rooted out and punished but protected and rewarded.

Discussions about *intent* are quite different from technical ones. Clearly there was intent to do something on 9/11 by some group. We don't know for certain who they even were or what there intent was. We can try to figure that out if we can first figure out exactly what happened.

My theory about design flaws and the *possible* criminally negligent decisions of those who made them, is not only consistent with the observables (I believe it is though here too some of it is hard to know with certainty) and the actual structures, engineering and physics but would explain the motive for a cover up. Motive is speculative. Those who have something to *hide* are clearly going to support and be cooperative or even remain silent with respect to a narrative which puts the responsibility on others and away from their actions.

Regardless of whodunnit, it's fairly obvious that our *defenses* and national security state failed to prevent the events or stop them in progress. That alone was something that should have been investigation and there should have been some accountability and heads rolling... or a serious re evaluation of the DOD and the national security state which has consumed enormous resources to *protect us* and failed when supposedly 19 guys with box cutters *attacked us*... as the story goes.

Identifying the enemy so early on and the nature of the attack was all that was needed to launch the post 911 policies which many claim were in place before the event. We shouldn't forget that the DOD etc. is always *gaming* all sorts of things and we were told that one of them was a hijacked plane attack of the twin towers. Was this because there was genuine basis to consider this as a possibility or was this made up out of whole cloth? Do anti American terrorists exist? The answer is, I think .. YES and terrorism is a response to our foreign policies.

We also need to consider that a defense establishment NEEDS an enemy to defend against if that is it's mission. Our nation, presumably a democracy is not about *empire* officially at any rate. We don't conquer weaker nations... militarily. But what *we* do do... is support multinational corporations which *conquer* weak nations economically - usually about extraction of resources. Historically conquering for resources was the activity of empires.

In the post WWII error the US engaged the USSR in a struggle of expanding spheres of influence. The USSR was supposedly exporting a revolution of the workers, anti capitalist... where the state (the people) owned and controlled the means of production and the resources. The concept of private property was an anathema to communism. The notion was to share the resources and wealth... the operative word being *share*. The west was largely capitalist and advocated individual property rights and the notion of competition leads to progress and wealth creation... and that is for those who are clever enough to do it. Open playing field... rising tides raises all ships .. trickle down and so forth (all BS talking points).

Don't want to go into a long lesson in history... but suffice it to say that our defense establishment is a front for an aggressive imperialist economic policy of multinational corporations. While the citizens of the US require energy - oil and gas - these are privately held commodities. When seen as essential to our well being and national security, the government finds itself in a position to support a foreign policy which benefits the private for profit multi national corporations. And so the government had become intertwined with the mission of private industry. The official US foreign policies then become the basis for abuse of populations around the world who *stand in the way* of corporations who want at the resources. Americans worship at the alter of wealth. He who has the most *things* earns the most respect and has the most power... and they use this to acquire more! That's how the game is played in a capitalist society. Fascism is the co mingling of the corporations with the state which uses the state's military apparatus to control people and advance the corporation's agendas (resource extraction, control of labor and wealth creation for those few already in control and wealthy). American foolishly and naively believe that there is a level playing field, that anyone can rise to the top and make out and that they have freedom because there is no government control and interference in the economy - free market economics.

The fact is the system we have has exploited people around the world since before the US rose to such a position or strength and dominance. It has created animus and given rise to insurgent struggles and revolutions by people who sought self determination and control of their own lives, land and resources. The US, in support of the extractive multinationals has always supported the status quo in repressing such struggles. The US has armed and facilitated many despots around the world (Marcos, Duvalier etc... there are scores of them)... because it suited the multinational corporations. As such our policies fostered anti Americanism and gave rise to what is non state terrorism. This cannot be disputed.

However, this was simply a new form of enemy for the national security state and a new justification for their existence. If there weren't actual states who were seeking to conquer and attack the USA, the national security state would then identify the non state actors as the enemy to justify their existence. Our pols then tried to link some states with being sponsors of non state terrorists such as Cuba or Libya, Iran and North Korea. It seems hard to imagine why a nation like North Korea would want to conquer the USA, but that's the basis for our policy toward these nations. We usually try to claim they are aggressor nations in their own region. Bad bad bad... but good good good for the MIC which can arm the neighbors with weapons and support *proxy wars*... even sponsoring right wing groups - *contras* who sought to over throw popular democratic but non capitalist countries which did not bend to multinational policies of resource extraction in their countries. They were of course labelled as *evil communists* at our doorstep.

Anyone who has studied history can see what is going on. Government has been increasingly in the thrall of *big business* and their free market right wing agenda. Government has been infested with corporate lobbyist who now drive the agenda of a supposedly democratic government. These interests have bought the media channels and control the information and messaging. These interests have now bought the electoral process which has now legally been able to place their *people* at all levels of government to promote.. free market right wing anti democratic policies. We've devolved into a democracy in name only... we live in an hypocracy!

And this brings me back to the topic of this thread. Those in power act both pro-actively and re-actively to events... with the common theme to advance their agenda. This gives *us* both disaster capitalism (Naomi Klein) and false flag adventures... the former follows right on from the latter. Opportunism is one of America's middle name. One can hardly believe that the networks planned and carried out 911, but they sure did milk it for billions. One can hardly say the networks are the reason there is so much money in elections, but they are getting untold billions in political advertising and other advertising related to elections. The airwaves are not free, but freely given to corporations to rake in dough while conveying garbage to the people... brainwashing them, dumbing them down and keeping them distracted from what is really happening.

9/11 could have been a false flag operation as it has the earmarks of one. It also could be an instance of disaster capitalism. It also could be a botched (or successful) intel type operation to *create* the new enemy. It could be many things at once and there are always the opportunists who appear to frame and exploit events for their (institutional) self interest. We know the powers that be are covering up their mis deeds all the time... their incompetence, schemes, fraud, abuse and so forth. This is par for the course. We know that bureaucracies are inefficient and screw up all the time... BP oil spill is a perfect example... We know that opportunists show up at every disaster - witness Katrina... and that when disaster reveals that there was poor planning or engineering that too is slept under the rug. Covering up of bureaucratic misconduct ALWAYS seems to take place. And this would include false flag activities, illegal intel operations, and private misconduct by officials for whatever their reasons (Zionist leanings?.... personal wealth??)

My B7 theory is consistent with how officials behave in disasters. It is consistent with the observables though admittedly we don't have very good data for many of them and an unreliable source for evidence...the groups who brought us the OCT and their own explanation (very similar to prosecutors suppressing exculpatory evidence... which happens all the time).

What can't be disputed is engineering and physics and the actual data that can be extracted from the public record materials. If NIST is silent on something are they covering up because it doesn't fit their explanation? Or were they bumbling incompetents who were not accident investigators and the pols made decisions which compromised any outcome... such as not preserving evidence. It seems unthinkable to me that any official investigation would reveal negligence, if it existed, in the design of those towers and the decisions by pols to build them. That you can take to the bank. So why NOT scrutinize the design and the decisions to erect those monsters and see what gives?

Covering up and exploitation is not as sexy as a big MIHOP false flag or a plan set 40 years ago to blow the towers up when they were first conceived... as a sort of ace to play at the right time. But covering up misconduct is what we've seen in every official investigation ... JFK, Contra, MLK and so on. The official explanation is clearly concealing misconduct by officials within the government.

This theory of the destruction of B7 should not be dismissed or framed as a back door reworking of the OCT and someone who presents it as a government shill. That's wrong. It is worthy of serious consideration.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 5 2012, 08:58 AM
Post #143



Group Icon

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



QUOTE
You can't have it both ways. That is to say, you can't quote FEMA and NIST as reliable, honest, sources of correct technical information when it's convenient for you *case* and then turn around and call their work deception, lied a cover up and so forth...


That's where I stopped reading.

Read the OP again.

Bye.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 5 2012, 10:00 AM
Post #144





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



OSS,

What a response... a non response to the item you referenced.

You seem to have trouble distinguishing the notion that all fires are not the same. And then toss my theory as a retread of NIST's theory.

It is clearly not. I have made numerous attempts to distinguish it... but apparently you don't comprehend them. And then there are others who claim that there is distinct evidence which refutes this theory. I've answered those claims but stating that the actual observables... such as damage to the sub station or the fuel tanks and even the fires within the sub station cannot be seen and there is no evidence that indicates conclusively that what I suggested did not happen. Then critics cite NIST as a source for the non evidence / observables or 3 second snippits of news video of a process that I suggested when on for 8 hrs.

Not a soul has acknowledged that the cover up of incompetence and liability is acceptable theory to examine.

Kill the messenger.

And let's not forget that some clever person on this forum... used my real name...though I don't care... in a sort of attempt to supposedly expose me as a fraud. My credentials have been question, though I don't see to many of my critics including kawika, amazed, DoYouEverWonder elreb, and OSS and other provide theirs. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I am not an elitist and accept good ideas and thinking no matter where it comes... and reject bad ideas and flawed thinking as well no matter where it comes from.

The hostility from the supposedly open transparent truth movement is stunning at times. Very quick to call other plants, shills, infiltrators and worse. And easily done with the anonymity of the net. Basically cowardly.

While I do have a professional license and conceivably could suffer career consequences. I have no problem ever in speaking my mind or what I believe to be the truth and do it without the cloak of anonymity.

OP acts like a hit and run "coward" not someone who is prepared to engage in serious discourse. I have never insulted or been rude to others online... but clearly this is not the case with others on the 911 truth sites.

But as they say... lies have short legs... they can't go very far.

Very bad approach to getting at the truth.

This post has been edited by SanderO: May 5 2012, 10:27 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 5 2012, 11:08 AM
Post #145



Group Icon

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



SanderO, I refuse to read any of your nonsense (including the last post) until you provide evidence for your claims. Got it?

Even the 911Forum guys who are far more knowledgeable than me (or any other "koolaiders" here) either ignore you or reject the pish that you're posting here!

Remember?

QUOTE (SanderO)
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.


http://the911forum.freeforums.org/girder-w...650.html#p19941

QUOTE (SanderO)
And then there's the AE911T fantasy of 81 columns being exploded on 8 floors all at once so the building can drop like a feather... in free fall. Yet another fantasy


When asked to source this by another poster there...

QUOTE
Pav...

No... I am not going to spend the time to find a published quote...


Or your horsekack about the freefall collapse was actually the outer "husk" of the building

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/dropping...515.html#p14998

QUOTE (SanderO)
If the PH did drop through the core and take out 79,89 and 81 and perhaps a few others it could lead to the complete destruction of the core columns and leave the building hollowed out and set up the FF and rapid descent of the facade and whatever floors were hanging on to the perimeter columns.


For which you were lambasted..

QUOTE
Re: Dropping Core
by OneWhiteEye » Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:26 am

QUOTE
T_Szamboti wrote:
Anyone who says the entire interior collapsed leaving an exterior shell which then collapsed afterward is not being honest.


Absolutely correct.


Why not give your evidence free "theory" another "bump" over there and leave us dumbasses alone?

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/dropping...515.html#p19863

rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post May 5 2012, 12:47 PM
Post #146





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



QUOTE (SanderO @ May 4 2012, 04:15 PM) *
Why do you doubt where I come from? I was born at Lenox Hill Hospital in NYC in 1947.

SanderO,

On a lighter note…

My daughter still holds the World record for swimming around Manhattan

Youngest MIMS Competitor: Cody Brammer, 12 years old, in 1988

http://www.nycswim.org/Article/ArticleTemp...?Article_ID=589
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 5 2012, 12:54 PM
Post #147



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (SanderO)
It is clearly not. I have made numerous attempts to distinguish it... but apparently you don't comprehend them. And then there are others who claim that there is distinct evidence which refutes this theory. I've answered those claims but stating that the actual observables... such as damage to the sub station or the fuel tanks and even the fires within the sub station cannot be seen and there is no evidence that indicates conclusively that what I suggested did not happen.


Sorry, didn't see your "proof" there.

FDNY are quoted as saying that there were no signs of diesel fire in the hours leading up to the collapse.

Con Edison claim that they had power in the WTC7 substation up until they turned it off at 4:33pm

Con Ed was involved in an insurance claim which could have been easily rejected or exposed if they had lied about the subbasement causing fires by transformer explosions.

All you have is speculation. Speculation that is actually a veiled attempt to add a subplot to the NIST Report that you claim to reject but repeat some of its claims and attempt to go beyond its ridiculous conclusions.

Nobody's buying your bullshit here or at 911forum. Much less the victim card when it's you who throws your rattle out of the pram and labels anybody who doesn't agree with your opinion as koolaid drinkers.

Go sail. Give my head peace.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 5 2012, 12:56 PM
Post #148



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (elreb @ May 5 2012, 05:47 PM) *
SanderO,

On a lighter note…

My daughter still holds the World record for swimming around Manhattan

Youngest MIMS Competitor: Cody Brammer, 12 years old, in 1988

http://www.nycswim.org/Article/ArticleTemp...?Article_ID=589


Nice one!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 5 2012, 06:30 PM
Post #149





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



My BS theory has not be trashed at the 911 Free Forum. The members mentioned do not support the controlled demolition theory (AE911T's) of Building 7 either though they don't have a theory / mechanism to explain what happened.

Most of the prolific posters at 911FF believe or support the notion that the core collapsed in advance of the facade or curtain wall.

Give it a read and tell they are BS.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 5 2012, 09:45 PM
Post #150



Group Icon

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



QUOTE
Most of the prolific posters at 911FF believe or support the notion that the core collapsed in advance of the facade or curtain wall.


And just a couple of posts up I quoted one of those "prolific posters" , OneWhiteEye, who agreed with another prolific poster, Tony Zsamboti, that "Anyone who says the entire interior collapsed leaving an exterior shell which then collapsed afterward is not being honest."

And I didn't say that they "trashed" your theory but have they responded to it? At all?

Try presenting some evidence to them SanderO. Ya never know.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 5 2012, 10:00 PM
Post #151



Group Icon

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



Just going to post some images here that 911Myths and Victoria Ashley posted to give the impression that WTC7 was "engulfed"















Shown also in this video:

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

Reality:



QUOTE
Within the building, the diesel tanks were surrounded by fireproofed enclosures.

NIST


QUOTE
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said." -New York Times (11/29/01)"


This post has been edited by onesliceshort: May 5 2012, 11:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 6 2012, 09:23 AM
Post #152





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



QUOTE
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said." -New York Times (11/29/01)"

Correct.. that would be explained by something else... the extreme heat created by the mechanical crushing of the concrete and contents of the floors releasing all sorts chemical, elements, metals, molecules plus water which could have caused exotic exothermic reactions to take place and attack the only materials not crushed... steel.

How many joules or calories would be released in 7 seconds or so in the grinding, crushing and pulverization of 200,000 tons of materials. I suspect enough to cause the effects seen.

Just a hunch...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post May 6 2012, 11:27 AM
Post #153





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



Iron Oxide and sulfur = Thermate

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with inter-granular melting due to the presence of sulfur.

The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel.
This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, [1832 F] forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge."

-JOM (12/02) Minerals, Metals & Materials Society

NOTE: Because thermate burns at higher temperatures than ordinary thermite, it has useful military applications in cutting through tank armor or other hardened military vehicles or bunkers.

As with thermite, thermate's ability to burn without an external supply of oxygen renders it useful for underwater incendiary devices.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 6 2012, 03:47 PM
Post #154





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



Possibly thermate reactions were taking place from the crushed material. Kevin Ryan shows how easily it is to make thermate. So perhaps there was thermate created and that caused the eutectic burning after the collapse... as opposed to causing it???
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post May 6 2012, 05:20 PM
Post #155





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



QUOTE (SanderO @ May 6 2012, 09:47 AM) *
Possibly thermate reactions were taking place from the crushed material.

You must be part “Pit Bull”?

It had been earlier stated that WTC7 lacked explosions.

I was wondering where Iron Oxide and Sulfur would have originated.

Concrete do not contain either one.

A Thermate composition is more focused on short bursts of high temperatures.

Seeing that Thermate is difficult to ignite, and requires supervision and sometimes persistent effort…one could see how a fire would come in handy and why the fire department was told to stand down.

“…the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires, due in part to the damage to WTC 7 from the collapsing towers. Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded by automatic or manual suppression activities…”
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 6 2012, 09:47 PM
Post #156





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



elreb,

There are thousands of chemicals in a typical office building and if the contents are crushed and pulverized in a heat producing mechanical crushing it's not unreasonable for some mixing of the *right stuff* to take place randomly. Not in huge quantities I would think.

Look at the RJ Lee report and you will see the range of elements and molecules present from electrical, mechanical systems, building materials, plastics, office contents, solvents and so forth. Crush it up, mix it up... add water and heat and pressure and who knows what happens? I don't.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post May 6 2012, 10:26 PM
Post #157





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



QUOTE (SanderO @ May 6 2012, 03:47 PM) *
it's not unreasonable for some mixing of the *right stuff* to take place randomly. Not in huge quantities I would think.

You should have been a lawyer…

I think, I could use you at http://www.elreb.com/

Let me know!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 6 2012, 10:38 PM
Post #158





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



Why a lawyer? I've acted pro se in the past.

The web site is interesting reading...

propaganda and internal mappings of the external world are not the same thing. The intent to deceive - propaganda - exists for self serving purposes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post May 7 2012, 01:15 AM
Post #159





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



QUOTE (SanderO @ May 6 2012, 04:38 PM) *
The web site is interesting reading...

The major reason I do not write about 911 is because of the governments “intent to deceive”.

Every aspect of history is propaganda. It is all about power and control.

When you watch the History and Discovery channel…they always state that they cannot explain a ton of things.

Strange as it may seem…I can…because I am not a Sheep or a Lemming.

As a “Code” reader and an investigative researcher…I source all data.

If you follow our science and history links…you will soon learn this too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 7 2012, 10:54 AM
Post #160



Group Icon

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



That steel sample. Does anybody know the chain of custody? When it was collected? When the analysis was done? Or at least how long before all of the WTC7 debris was removed?

Cheers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

22 Pages V  « < 6 7 8 9 10 > » 
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: 30th October 2014 - 02:57 PM