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 )

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Fema Lied About The Towers Core - Demolition, The Towers were built to demolish

Christophera
post Nov 22 2007, 05:55 PM
Post #61





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 494
Joined: 14-November 07
Member No.: 2,482



QUOTE (amazed! @ Nov 22 2007, 04:24 PM)
Well, my bet is that if there was a DEW, it was located and/or controlled from Rudy's little EOC in building 7.

Given the radial uniformity of the Twin Towers event in the horizontal plane, it is certain that if a DEW were used, it would have to be directly over head. DEW's still have directional effects.

Again, given the appearance of these columns by the thousands and the impossibility of a dew effecting what is basically one continous column in this way, a DEW is not actually something that can be considered.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Christophera
post Nov 23 2007, 04:15 AM
Post #62





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 494
Joined: 14-November 07
Member No.: 2,482



QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Nov 16 2007, 05:15 PM)


WTC 1 above, the crane platform is the centermost steel structure of the core area, the part seen which has the wide diagonal structure. It could be jacked up to 5 floors over the top floor wiithout the core. existing above that floor.

Few are aawre of the construction mechanism but the lack of any diagonal structure whatsoever in the following image shows the inner wall of the outer steel framework from 9-11. Which is being erected from the height of the crane platform at top image.



The crane platform has the long diagonals below and at top. The crane towers are the smaller heavily trussed structures where one hase been moved out of its more comonly seen corner location below. In the core are the butt plates on top of the vertical steel that show they are not core columns. Core columns must be 100% fillet welded.



Below there are false floors in place of over the core and concrete is being cast under it up to 80 feet down.

QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Nov 16 2007, 05:15 PM)


Below the picture is far too to use at all.

QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Nov 16 2007, 05:15 PM)


Below there is a reflection off of concrete from steel forms on the inside concrete core wall.

QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Nov 16 2007, 05:15 PM)


What follows is an image of a huge triangular segment of concrete follows as it topples into the core area from the east, narrow end core wall of WTC 1.



The brownish piece inside the falling perimeter columns is part of the top of the concrete core of WTC 2 about to hit WTC 3.







QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Nov 16 2007, 05:15 PM)


First of all, any topic discussed in this forum is not to be construed as being supported by the Pilots for 9/11 Truth organization. This forum is for the discussion of hypothesise that are of general interest to members of our community.

NEW RULE: All discussion in this forum from now on (August 13, 2007) must remain civil. By this I mean more than refraining from obvious insults. if you state or imply that someone is "stupid" or "crazy" or in any other way insult a poster's intelligence, you will be given a warning from an Administrator or a Moderator. I will allow TWO such warnings, beyond that your posting privileges will be suspended. This rule will apply to everyone in this forum -- Administrators, Moderators, long time members as well as more recent members alike. If you do not feel you can be civil, polite and refrain from even the most subtle ad homonym attack I encourage you to NOT post in this forum.

One further note: I define DISINFORMATION as any information which makes claims of fact that cannot be reasonably drawn from the evidence provided. I base this definition on the observation that most of the claims of fact by our government concerning the events of 9/11 are not substantiated by their evidence (when they bother to provide any at all). You may very well "believe" that your "theory" is correct based on your research and your evidence -- as, indeed, most people "believe" that the 'official conspiracy theory', or the 'official narrative' of 9/11 is accurate. However, it is one thing to state "such and so MAY be true" and back that up with information and evidence that reasonably substantiates your contention, evidence which can be evaluated by others. It is quite another matter to state unequivocally that "such and so IS true," when the evidence provided is not sufficient to reasonably draw that conclusion. The former is a statement to be evaluated, the latter is [i]stated as fact
not warranted by the evidence and is, therefore, disinformation.

In other words, MAKE YOUR CASE -- and don't insult those who aren't persuaded by it.[/i]


Just testing here Oceans Flow. Please don't get excited. I know you're past the point set forward in what I quote by now. I am just using your post as a fairness check. I wonder who said that above, and whether they've checked the info you posted and compared it to what I've been posting to decide what the disinfo is and take action to protect the truth?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Nov 26 2007, 01:07 PM
Post #63





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (amazed! @ Nov 18 2007, 09:38 AM)
I doubt the reliability of explosives placed more than 30 years earlier.

Sorry to butt in late on this thread but as for explosives being reliable after 30 years is a good point. Although explosives can remain lethal after much longer a time lapse, as many WW1 battlefield excavators have discovered to their cost, reliable they wont be.

My money would be on the explosives being planted in the run up to 911. To be sure the issue of demolition could have been considered at design and facility made for later placing of the necessary charges but then technology in this game would have moved on in 30 years so this is also unlikely.

Now this 'run up' could be a rather open ended time frame. My guess is that plans were forming before the 93 event. Note how long Marvin Bush and Wirt D Walker III were involved with the company providing security at WTC (and airports):

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3336.htm

Then there is the strange case of the elevator maintenance company change see Kevin Fenton's post at:

democraticunderground

However I think Kevin is off target with his final thoughts that after 1993 explosives were placed to prevent an asymmetric collapse in the event of trouble.

With access to building in the control of those with something to gain, known long periods of ‘lift maintenance’, federal and other obscure institutions leasing key floors over a period of time there was plenty of opportunity to place the necessary devices. And yes WTC7 played a big part in the control of events I am sure, particularly with the known re-enforcing and armored glass windows of floors occupied by Rudi’s command post – proofed against large bits of debris being flung against it perhaps.

However I am having some trouble with the concrete cores proposition of Christophera.

The photo’s of the buildings with sunlight shinning right through seems to demonstrate the absence of such a structure. Looking in particular at the North tower then all we see is the narrow shadow of the elevators in the building. The South tower is, to be sure, more complex with just the central core standing as shadow below the upper sky lobby floor, looking more substantial than that in the North tower because the orientation is turned ninety degrees. I think that the more solid look to the top and bottom of the South tower is due to at the top thicker cloud and sun position and at the bottom higher buildings behind.

I don’t see a big concrete box like structure, only lift shafts.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Christophera
post Nov 26 2007, 03:50 PM
Post #64





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 494
Joined: 14-November 07
Member No.: 2,482



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Nov 26 2007, 12:07 PM)


QUOTE (amazed! @ Nov 18 2007, 09:38 AM)
The photo’s of the buildings with sunlight shinning right through seems to demonstrate the absence of such a structure. Looking in particular at the North tower then all we see is the narrow shadow of the elevators in the building. The South tower is, to be sure, more complex with just the central core standing as shadow below the upper sky lobby floor, looking more substantial than that in the North tower because the orientation is turned ninety degrees. I think that the more solid look to the top and bottom of the South tower is due to at the top thicker cloud and sun position and at the bottom higher buildings behind.

I don’t see a big concrete box like structure, only lift shafts.



There were almost 100 elevators. And they were probably not all finished in the above photo.

We see WTC 1 with its single hallway.
WTC 2 has 2 hallways and was finished before WTC 1. Why do we not see many vertical lines of light showing the supposed multiple columns in the core?

In the below image I show that it is of WTC 2 and that the openings of the hallways afford the light showing through the core. The narrow blue lines are the sides of the openings on the narrow end.



Again, there are no multiple steel columns seen in the core area. No photo shows the narrow columns that would be seen is they existed.

Some helicopter photos show broad solid areas in the core in the top 10 floors or so. From the documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers", (about WTC 1 primarily) which talked about WTC 2 near the end, I learned that the WTC core was a different design

WTC 1 had been very difficult and slow to build. It did not rent easily because of the poor access across the core. Accordingly WTC core was redesigned to allow 2 hallways in each direction on every floor.

What enabled this was the inclusion of another wall crossing the narrow axis at the center. The design was a combined shear wall/cell configuration that utilized a new, smaller section with every 4 vertical feet (the liimit for concrete pours) and near the top of the tower it was not completely monolithically poured.

Construction engineers had determined the exact amount of flex the exterior steel framework was subject to and had found that a relatively small amount of concrete wall significantly reduced that. In the images of WTC 2 which show partial solid areas, not multiple steel column, we are looking at one or two walls that have been cast in 4 floor pieces that stiffen the towers so steel can be erected without undue deformations of the steel by the cranes working on the crane platform which is fastened to the interior box columns extending up from around the concrete core below.

BTW, the uniformity of the blasts,



prohibit ordinary bombs or charges because of the impossibility of proper placement and distribution, placing charges after construction cannot get enough distribution to create the total pulverization seen. Also, the quantities of sand and gravel exceed, roughly by a factor of 2, those that would be present for a tower with only concrete floors. Additionally, in the image linked in this paragraph above, very large aggregate can be seen. Only 10 floors of the towers had "hard stone aggregate", and the size of the aggregate seen in the bottom left of that image is huge, much larger than would be put into 4 inch thick floors.

Also. the audio of nearby video recordings are absolutely very well contained blasts and the distribution is complete over every floor, floor after floor with obvious, hundreds and hundreds of detonations.

Consider that guiliani took, illegally the plans and courts would not compel their return, Consider that NO image from 9-11 shows ANY steel columns in the core area. These facts, and others in this post really need integration into any determination regarding the core.

C4, if sealed where evaporation and oxidization cannot occur, will last indefinitely. The source for that is a former Marine corp major with extensive experience in demolitions and field use of RDX. The manufafurer states "At least 10 years under good conditions

http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/C4.htm

Would 2 feet of concrete be better than 5mils of mylar?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Christophera
post Apr 27 2012, 10:53 PM
Post #65





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 494
Joined: 14-November 07
Member No.: 2,482



Just wondering if anyone had noticed the "Misprision of Treason" filing under Title 18, part I, chapter 115, §2382 filing at United States District Court February 18, 2010, CM 10-00040?

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.disclosure.html

The clerks agreed that it should be filed with the criminal clerk because that USC is criminal. The criminal clerk filed it in "Criminal Miscellaneous" of "CM". Which just sits there with no obligation for anyone to act. The IN RE: filing was 38 pages, but one web page covers it with links built in.
"
It's about the FEMA deception, which is very well evidenced with, "independently verified evidence".

There are 3 pages in a chain from there that cover the interactions with the US district court. Our courts are infiltrated.

I've noticed that still no one has found an image showing steel core columns in the core area or come up with another way to explain how everything was shredded. The demo pages from the bottom nav box at that link have a detailed and feasible explanation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Apr 30 2012, 11:18 AM
Post #66





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,933
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Good to see you again Christopher, and thanks for taking the time and effort to petition our courts.

Yes, they are more than infiltrated, they are utterly corrupted on many levels. Their participation in the coverup of the events of 11 September is shameful.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Apr 30 2012, 12:07 PM
Post #67





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



GUESS: Guiliani was made aware by the FDNY that morning that the diesel fuel from his emergency power for the OEM would cook the trusses and that it might (and I think did) cause B7 to collapse. That was a Guiliani driven decision and he wanted and evidence of this removed from public scrutiny. NIST came up with the office fire explanation and Guiliani gave a huge sigh of relief.... his negligence (and his advisors.. Hauer et al) would not be brought up.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 1 2012, 01:53 PM
Post #68





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,933
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



SanderO

Are you aware of the long battle between the Mayor and the rest of the City Council regarding the location of NYC Emergency Operations Center?

It went on for years and was well covered by the MSM.

Have you any opinions on what might have motivated the Mayor to make such a stand over such a trivial thing?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 1 2012, 03:30 PM
Post #69





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



I think Guiliani is an jerk. I think that the general location in that area was fine. Lots of high profile targets, close to water and heliport and near FBI, CIA etc...

I don't know the other locations... perhaps an underground type bunker at the WFC would have been much better. I suppose they thought the building was so strong... and were probably getting kick backs from the building owner. The real boneheaded move was that it required all that diesel fuel to run the center's emergency power. Placing it under a high rise in close proximity to the sub station is what Guiliani is trying to hide now because.... I believe it contributed to the collapse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post May 1 2012, 04:08 PM
Post #70





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,933
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Yes, he is a jerk. And a crook.

But there's more to it Sander. I'm sorry for not being able to provide the appropriate links, but NYT covered it fairly well. I assume other outlets did too. It went on for years and years, and finally Giuliani prevailed.

The Council wanted to build it somewhere over on the East River as I recall, near the wharves.

Rudy fussed and fussed and the Council eventually gave up.

I think it was a crucial part in the events of the day, but that's just a hunch.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 1 2012, 10:10 PM
Post #71





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



My theory is that it has a lot to do with the events of the day....and especially the collapse of B7.

Regardless of whether there were placed devices or not... (I think not)... the mech floors with those transfer trusses and the diesel fuel which of if it leaked could be pumped up from the tanks below and burn until the pumps shut down.. cooking the T trusses and cantilver girders. If they failed the building would be a goner.. coming down much as we saw it.

So IF that fuel and that system essentially cooked the steel... it would put Rudy in the hot seat for pushing for that OEM center.

It's also possible that the design would make for a simple CD... 3 T trusses and 8 cantilever girders.

But the Rudy administration probably approved the original bldg design using the air rights over the Con Edison sub station even before the OEM center was added. You can smell bribes, kick backs in the entire affair... and with few residential occupants down there to complain the commercial real estate lobby prevailed. I think most of Battery Park City was built post B7. Recall how Rudy thought he should remain as Mayor voiding the election... after 911.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Christophera
post May 7 2012, 01:46 PM
Post #72





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 494
Joined: 14-November 07
Member No.: 2,482



QUOTE (amazed! @ Apr 28 2012, 02:18 PM) *
Good to see you again Christopher, and thanks for taking the time and effort to petition our courts.

Yes, they are more than infiltrated, they are utterly corrupted on many levels. Their participation in the coverup of the events of 11 September is shameful.


You are welcome. It's about our constitution. Without 9-11 truth, there is a very good chance we will lose it. Testing courts for constitutionality is vital. Know any soldiers? If so, download this .pdf defining legal strategy where soldiers and citizens can use courts to create lawful and peaceful revolution.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/i8xx16

The action of the US district courts sets precedence for citizens filing under the authority of criminal US code so they might act in legal flanking manuevers with soldiers. There is a little more to the strategy that that which offsets the corruption we know exists.

Success in this case is about agreement and unity to gain an Article V convention.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 7 2012, 06:05 PM
Post #73



Group Icon

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



Don't know if this is the right place for this post and it doesn't deserve a thread of its own.

Let's look at the big picture regarding the "diesel fires"

Don't you think it's coincidental that the ConEd lawsuit resurfaced around the time that the "Remember Building 7" campaign got under way? The original lawsuit was placed because under the insurance policy, any claims had to be placed within a year of any incident.

I'm sure that despite any differences of opinion among members here, we can all agree that corporations are at the heart of nearly all false flag and deep state events throughout the last century and now.

NIST wasn't mentioned in any of the ConEd lawsuits as a defence against their claims (I've heard that the NIST Report can't be used in any court cases, but I'm not sure of this).

ConEd is a corporation. It's chairman is Kevin Burke.

QUOTE
Mr. Burke has been Chairman of the Board of Con Edison and Con Edison of New York since February 2006. Mr. Burke was President and Chief Executive Officer of Con Edison and Chief Executive Officer of Con Edison of New York since September 2005. Previously, Mr. Burke was President and Chief Operating Officer of Con Edison of New York from September 2000 until September 2005. Mr. Burke has been a Director of Con Edison, a Trustee of Con Edison of New York and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Orange & Rockland since October 2005. During the past five years, Mr. Burke also served as a Director of Honeywell International Inc., Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Business Council of New York State and YMCA of Greater New York, Inc., and a Director or Trustee of American Gas Association, The Economic Club of New York, Edison Electric Institute, Institute for Electric Efficiency, Mayor's Fund to Advance New York City, New York Botanical Garden, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, and Partnership for New York City.


http://people.forbes.com/profile/kevin-burke/22665


Honeywell

http://honeywell.com/Products-Services/Pag...ce-defense.aspx

Business Council of New York

http://www.bcnys.org/inside/brdlist.htm

The Economic Club of New York (former guest and current members - GW Bush)

http://econclubny.com/guests.asp

http://econclubny.com/video.asp

http://econclubny.com/photogallery.asp

http://econclubny.com/photoalbum.asp?AlbumNo=1

Partnership for New York City

http://www.pfnyc.org/history.html

Nice friends.

My point is, Does anybody here really believe that one corporation will take on another corporation in the knowledge that its claims would open a can of worms for a corporation run government?

I don't know why NIST took the decision to run with the "office fires" scenario when the "diesel fire and structural damage" card would have been more "acceptable" and infinitely more flexible for government loyalists and the media to exaggerate.

It just smells like another attack on the public psyche. Innuendo that WTC7 "really" fell because of diesel fuel (a claim that is based on speculation and nothing else - and based on the assumption that diesel fires would bring about a freefall symmetrical collapse) and that there's a non 9/11 related cover up regarding insurance (when that greedy bastard Silverstein pocketed $4 billion?)

Just like the Stutt/Legge subplot to confuse and insinuate. That's all it is. A subplot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 7 2012, 09:16 PM
Post #74





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



OSS,

You are like others thinking that a global failure wouldn't / shouldn't / couldn't result in a relatively *organized* or as you call it symmetrical collapse.

When you get axial destruction... from whatever means there is a load re distribution to remaining columns.... The structure will stand plumb... as long as the loads are less than the yield strength. When the yield strength = the load the FOS is 1... and if one more columns fails or weakens the aggregate yield strength of FOS goes below one... for ALL columns. This is seen as buckling under load... all... if the loads are organized in a symmetrical column config unless the damage is extensive and asymmetrical the structure will come straight down... that is if it remains together. But as encounter resistance the shock can shatter the frame connections and the descending structure breaks apart... and still drops straight down. Even if it drops in stages across the floor plan... the individual sections drop down and break away from the remaining. Even in verinage the destruction from pulling at the columns on one side results in the structure falling pretty much straight down.

The failures will propagate pretty damn quick and it appears as a rapid onset as Gage calls it. This is very different than parts of a structure burning away bit by bit. Steel and concrete frames (moment frames) are quite rigid and do a fairly good job of load redistribution BECAUSE of the moment connections. Pinned connections are less effective at load redistribution.

The rapid onset seems to indicate a slow loss of FOS... creeping down to 1 and than falling below and then Bang the structure drops... buckling the remaining columns... gathering speed (accelerating)... but not to FF if there material resisting even when it's weakened buckled columns.

Returning to the cover up motives... The big guys did not want to get into a legal pissing match as these construction litigation suits often are with every single firm that had anything to do with the project being dragged into court and they all try to pin it on someone else. That would have been a very interesting public spectacle to see Guiliani defend his boneheaded reasons for siting the OEM in B7... or for the placement of 20,000 gallons of diesel at a Con Ed sub station and they are known to explode transformers from time to time.... or for Con Ed selling the air rights over their sub station... a deal of extreme greed... as the WFC site was still available for another tower... Or to see the present City Planning Commission and former engineer who designed B7 explain his brilliant design to build a skyscraper on a span over a sub station.

There were so many greedy bone head decisions made with respect to the WTC... it would be the poster child for greed and back room deals. And let's not forget the PANY which demanded they be exempt for NYC building codes and even the zoning regulations. The citizens took it hard... the corporations including the contractors made out like bandits (they always do)... but the damn thing went south on them and so they had a boogy man... Those freedom hating Islamic fundies to pin it on. Don't rock the boat... shut up and go with the cover story and there's more booty to be had.

No way Jose was any of this going to be heard in public testimony, a court room or an official report.

Whether or not there was CD (I think not) there was ooddles to cover up. And that's a story that the truth movement is burying and these guys are laughing their asses off.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 7 2012, 10:30 PM
Post #75



Group Icon

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



And this is speaking from experience from all of those other steel structures that fell by fire pre and post 9/11?

NIST claims that "office fires" caused the collapse. End of story. Based on that conclusion, CD had to have been used to bring down WTC7. End of story.

You haven't once presented any proof of your "theory". Not once.

So less of the "you're one of those guys" nonsense.

If you actually believe that corporations would be pulling moves to claim a few million bucks and upset the "old boys' club" at the risk of the government or the shadow government having to provide more info or expose themselves, you don't know your own history.

Do you really believe that the chairman of ConEd is really going to go against his own?
If things were really as you say, and ConEd's transformers were "really" exploding or the FDNY was "really" lying about the lack of diesel smoke prior to collapse, or that ConEd "really" had no power until 4:33, the Port Authority could have exposed this. Just like the Port Authority didn't use the NIST Report to counter their claim. they're tippytoeing around the subject while passing the "diesel" subplot through the media.

Diesel doesn't create temperatures of minimum 1000 degrees C in an oxygen starved environment or create eutectic mixtures.

Your theory is unfounded and irrelevant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 8 2012, 07:25 AM
Post #76





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



OSS,

Non sequitor. (sp?)

There has never been a un-fought diesel or jet fuel type fires in any high rise... especially with the designs of the towers. The twins suffered major structural damage... loss of columns.

Even so... just because something hasn't occurred in the past... doesn't mean there can't be a first time. That is hardly proof or a dis proof.

Of course normal type fires do not induce eutectic burning. So the high heat was caused by something else. You dismiss out of hand that the burning could have taken place post collapse... and there is no way of knowing when it did occur. You dismiss the notion of cascading failures when this is typical of failures which often are not self limiting or arresting, but set of a chain reaction of increasing magnitude... as used in the common phrase...*the straw that broke the camel's back*. Obviously a strand of straw cannot break his back... but when it is the tiny bit that adds to all the other weight that straw may be though of as the cause... or the trigger for the event.

You truly have a cartoon like concept of what happened at the WTC. The buildings were exploded in an instant... or all the columns exploded in an instant. The early motion indicates an cascading failing propagating through the system.

You appear incapable of correctly reading the visuals and understand the structural vulnerabilities of those designs.

I have presented an engineering / structural based model of how the B7 could have come down. It is based on the limited visual record...and we can't see where I suggest the key failures were taking place. Eye witness testimony is unreliable... and Joe Firefighter is not a structural engineer or a physicist... and neither are you!

There is more than enough historical precedence for people to cover their butts when they have committed a no no... taking responsibility is unamerican... getting away with wrong doing is tantamount to not be guilty. We know that there is and will be corruption in government and corporations. We see their obfuscation and lying all the time.. BP, Katrina and yes 911... why would that be any different? Your assertion / assumption that the only thing that needed to be swept under the rug was the controlled demolition is very naive.

I pointed to testimony by the engineer of B7 who said he believed the tower came down because of diesel fires weakening the transfer trusses... not the NIST story... but he too is dismissed by OSS who knows better.

Trying to prove this or that from the evidence we have available is not going to happen. At best we can nullify or falsisfy theories... by pointing to flaws and in consistences as has been done to the work of NIST and FEMA.

I presented a coherent theory and even logical reasons why this theory was avoided like the plague by officials and it is still tossed in a support of the discredited explanation which I agreed with as being a cover up.

You guys are excellent at cherry picking and putting together what seems to make sense... but in the end is not more credible that the NIST story.

The interesting thing is that anyone other explanation is lumped in as a OCT retread by the truth movement and as another conspiracy theory by the OCT supporters. That's telling in itself. It's the you're with us or against closed mind approach to reality.

I began my interest in 9/11 with distrust of the OCT... it seemed highly suspect. I adopted the positions of the 9/11 truth movement until I began to do my own thinking and study and realized that the 9/11 truth movement made many mistakes, many leaps and constructed an elaborate theory which really had little evidence to support it... mostly analogy... comparisons and means, motive and opportunity... and lots of denial of science... and poor understanding of physics.

I am perfectly OK with the positions I hold. And I have called for a new investigation to establish what actually happened. If I was so convinced of it I wouldn't be doing that but accusing as opposed to suggesting.

The bizarre social psychology of this event and aftermath is amazing...

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post May 8 2012, 09:42 AM
Post #77



Group Icon

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



I don't even know where to start with a response to that arrogant pile of horsekack and how you put words in my mouth that were never said.

SanderO, you bring out the worst in me. The "WTC7 and SanderO" thread exposed your OCT style "debate".


OSS : Explosion witnesses?

SanderO: Nah, transformers. They weren't explosions.

OSS: Barry Jennings?

SanderO: Nah, transformers.

OSS: ConEd say they had power until 4:33

SanderO: Nah, transformers

OSS: NYPD told NIST that they saw no evidence of fuel fires precollapse

SanderO: Nah, transformers

OSS: There's video evidence that there was no fire or black smoke from the lower floors.

SanderO: We can't see inside (that is, these out of control diesel fires' smoke stayed within the building)

OSS: Collapse of WTC7 has all of the hallmarks of a CD. 

SanderO: What we see in the WTC7 collapse video is actually the exterior dropping after the interior. 

OSS: Even your engineer friends say that anybody who claims this is dishonest

SanderO: yeah, but I'll repeat it here at the forum to the ignorant plebs

OSS: Eutectic mixtures found in the WTC7 rubble suggest thermitic properties

SanderO: Ah, maybe thermate can be self formed through collapse and high heat...

OSS: WTC5 was subject to thousands of tons of falling debris and far more prolonged fires on multiple floors. Expansion of the steel beams only lead to a partial collapse.

SanderO: they're different structures

OSS: Molten metal

SanderO: So what?

OSS: Basement explosions

SanderO: Transformers and/or jet fuel. Take your pick

OSS: have you got anything bar unfounded speculation?

SanderO: I haven't time (although I've time to write multiple long winded opinion pieces). None of you are qualified to counter my claims.

Somebody else can respond. This "koolaider" as he has labelled me and anybody else on this forum who challenges his theory, has had enough. Enjoy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post May 8 2012, 11:04 AM
Post #78





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



OSS,

You are smitten with the snippin' of quotes and consider that to be a kind of gotcha debate winning approach.

I have noted many times in both threads that there were sounds of explosions and there WERE explosions

All bombs explode but not all explosions are bombs

Transformers DO explode...but not all transformers explode. Several did at the WTC sub basement in 1992.

Jennings and Hess reported explosions ... large and powerful below them blowing out the stairs at 6&7 making them unpassable. They didn't say if it was a bomb.. they said it was an explosion. Could be a bomb.. could be something on the mech floor or in the sub station. I proposed it was an electrical based explosion. Con Ed reported 8 open 13KV feeders starting at 8:46. Jennings and Hess reported there was no power when the descended before 10 am.. before T1 collapsed. Who turned off the feed to the bldg? or what made the power cut off? Answer.. explosions unless you mis interrupt what con ed said... that they were able to re route power to bldg and then cut it at 4pm.

I did not write that diesel fires DIRECTLY caused eutectic burning of steel. I said that it is conceivable.... and supported by Canter that diesel fires enabled to collapse by failing the T trusses. After that we don't know WHAT happened. He didn't mention eutectic burning of steel and the sample is inconclusive as to WHEN that burning took place... before during or after the collapse. If you know when.. please reveal it and how that was determined.

Exactly what "evidence" have I ignored in my theory?

explosions - included
free fall descent for 8 floor - included
inward bowing of north curtain wall - included
insubstantial fires on upper floors - included as irrelevant

I have asserted that the officials have deceived us about the amount of diesel fuel consumed and recovered... and have simply not looked at any diesel fuel failure modes of the T trusses. THOSE ARE ASSERTIONS.... no different that asserting CD.

There is a question about the smoke from the flames on flrs 6&7. And there are insufficient videos to conclude there was or there wasn't extensive smoke or what color it was or what was burning.... for 8 hrs if this is true down there.

I provided a motive for the official deception and even why they took 4 years to come up with column 79 nonsense.

I have proposed a reasonable hypothesis to explain the observables and the actual structure of the tower. I haven't proven anything, nor have the CD proponents. It also happens to be in line with what the structural designer of the building believes... but not what NIST or AE911T, OSS and others have said.

Your arguments do not impress me. But they may your fellow CDers.

Cherries are coming into season!

This post has been edited by SanderO: May 8 2012, 12:19 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 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: 31st October 2014 - 04:40 PM