|
Aldous
enthusiast


Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 52 minutes
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: ]
#2889124 - 07/14/04 10:27 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, I know, that's an interesting point. This is from http://libertythink.com :
Quote:
Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder on the World Trade Center complex in Manahattan, admits that WTC 7 was "pulled," that is, intentionally demolished: I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
This rather undermines the FEMA report on the WTC collapse, which says: The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.
Rather strange, isn't it? Official investigation reports claim the collapse was due to unknwon causes, maybe the diesel fire (at least they realize the case looks suspicious), and then the owner of the place (who BTW was luckily insured against terrorism) simply says the building WAS put down, by... the NYFD! So what this means is that the official investigators from FEMA were not aware of the fact that the NYFD took down the building, because Silverstein wouldn't tell them... or maybe Silverstein made up a new version later on, in the face of growing disbelief from the general public? But really, if Silverstein is correct, how on earth would FEMA not be aware of the facts?
Other question: Does anyone really believe that such a controlled collapse can be organized in the matter of a few hours, in the immediate aftermath of the largest disaster in New York history and while the base of the building is on fire?
Conclusion: WTC7's demolition was indeed (planned and) controlled, but this fact was at first hidden from the general public. Can anyone tell me why?
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation


Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2889338 - 07/14/04 11:40 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
AhronZombi said: All that one needs to know, to be able to conclusively prove that the Twin Towers were demolished, is that the towers fell in roughly 10 seconds, that is, that they fell at about the same rate that an object falls through air.
Anyone with a little common sense will realize that the top of a building does not pass through the concrete and steel that comprises the lower portion of the building at the same rate that it falls through air. This just doesn't happen, unless, of course, the lower part of the building has lost its structural integrity (and this is usually due to the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as seen in controlled demolitions).
The fact that the towers collapsed in about 10 seconds is a statement that the upper portion of each of the towers passed through the lower portion at about the same rate that it would have fallen through air. The fact that the towers fell this quickly (essentially at the rate of free-fall) is conclusive evidence that they were deliberately demolished.
Believing that there is nothing wrong with the towers collapsing so quickly, is roughly analogous to believing that people pass through closed doors as quickly as they pass through open doors.
The fact that they fell at such a rate means that they encountered essentially no resistance from the supposedly undamaged parts of the structure. That is, no resistance was encountered from any of the immensely strong parts of the structure that had held the building up for the last 30 years. From this one can conclude that the lower undamaged parts were actually very damaged (probably by the detonation of a multitude of small explosive charges as is usual in a controlled demolition).
I bet if I support a cow so that it just touches your head and then let it go it will fall to the ground (with you underneath) at about the same rate as it would if you were not under it. The fact is that between the inertia and weight of the already moving upper floors the fire weakened structure below amounted to a fraction of what would be needed to slow the fall of the buildings. Had the building been pre wired don't you think that all the flamming fuel dumping down the center of the buildings main structual supports (the place where explosives would be located) would have gone off prematurly rather than the perfectly orchestrated sequence that would be required to pull off the conspiracy that you believe happened?
-------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all
|
KingOftheThing
the cool fool


Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,397
Loc: USA
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2889355 - 07/14/04 11:47 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
would be scary if it was true...i wouldnt put it past bush and crew...but i doubt it
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation


Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: mntlfngrs]
#2889392 - 07/14/04 11:56 AM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Skyscrapers are designed to go straight down in the event of a collape. They are enginered to withstand high lateral pressures and winds, so the least likely way for one to fall is to tip over. Especially the towers since a large part of it's structure was the outer skin. The path of least resistance was straight down into itself.
-------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all
|
JesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2889456 - 07/14/04 12:13 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
It seems that all of you conviently ignore the evidence that I presented about Henry Kissinger and my grandmother. The mainstream media has kept you blind to the truth.
-------------------- Tastes just like chicken
|
Aldous
enthusiast


Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 52 minutes
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: mntlfngrs]
#2889593 - 07/14/04 12:39 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mntlfngrs said: Skyscrapers are designed to go straight down in the event of a collape.
Haha, that's just laughable. They're designed not to collapse at all, collapsing is not an option, until something just too strong hits them, and then they're beyond control. If what you say was true, it wouldn't take controlled demolition experts to take down buildings, you would just have to blow up the base in whatever way.
Now will someone help me with this WTC7 problem?
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2889608 - 07/14/04 12:41 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> would have gone off prematurly rather than the perfectly orchestrated sequence
No. Most explosives will burn rather than detonate when exposed to fire... they probably would have used a water gel explosive, which is very difficult to detonate without a cap. These would be formed into shaped charges and have to be placed along the superstructure (two, one on each side of a beam) in order to cut the support beams. This in itself isn't enough to drop the building, typically. There would also need to be a set of lifters to start the collapse, which are large explosive charges set at the base of the support structures. These most likely would have have been TNT or anfo... both of which are next to impossible to detonate without a booster and a cap.... the timing of the lifters has to be correct as well... they have to go off after the main support structures have already been cut.
Also, in the implosive demolition of a building, the system is designed so that the building pulls itself down. I don't know where you are getting all of this 'Anyone with a little common sense will realize that the top of a building does not pass through the concrete and steel that comprises the lower portion of the building at the same rate that it falls through air', but common sense typically has very little to do with the way things really work. The lower portions of the building actually pull down the upper sections, in a controlled demolition.
> Skyscrapers are designed to go straight down in the event of a collape.
I haven't had a lot of civil engineering courses, but I would be very surprised if they design the buildings with collapse in mind. You don't design a bridge so that when it fails, it fails in an orderly fasion... you design it so that it doesn't fail. Buildings are not like cars where they expect accidents and failures to happen.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
trendal
J♠


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Seuss]
#2889676 - 07/14/04 12:52 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I've always thought the idea about jet fuel collecting into buddles down elevator shafts was a little strange...
A liquid like jet fuel, when slammed into anything at aircraft speeds, turns into a rather fine spray - causing the bulk of it to burn extremely fast in a large fireball. I don't know how much fuel there would have been left, unburned, to pour down elevator shafts... Also, if that WAS the case I would have expected fires to start throughought the entire building right down to the basement...
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: trendal]
#2889714 - 07/14/04 12:59 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> A liquid like jet fuel, when slammed into anything at aircraft speeds, turns into a rather fine spray - causing the bulk of it to burn extremely fast in a large fireball.
Only if you have a small amount. When you are talking about 80,000 pounds of liquid, it takes a massive amount of energy to vaporize it. Jet fuel is also much more difficult to light than regular automotive gas, and only the vapor burns, not the liquid. Even if the fuel did vaporize, the oxygen available would be limited.
> I don't know how much fuel there would have been left, unburned, to pour down elevator shafts...
I would guess quite a lot... in the multiple tens of thousands of pounds.
> if that WAS the case I would have expected fires to start throughought the entire building right down to the basement
Again, the fuel has to vaporize before it will ignite. There is a limit on oxygen available for cumbustion. It would take a while for the fire to propagate downwards. The falling fuel would be mixed with all of the falling water from the broken water pipes and the fire suppresion system. Etc...
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Barbi
Plastic Person

Registered: 04/22/02
Posts: 12,976
Last seen: 19 years, 6 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Aldous]
#2889731 - 07/14/04 01:03 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Aldous said:
Quote:
mntlfngrs said: Skyscrapers are designed to go straight down in the event of a collape.
Haha, that's just laughable. They're designed not to collapse at all, collapsing is not an option, until something just too strong hits them, and then they're beyond control. If what you say was true, it wouldn't take controlled demolition experts to take down buildings, you would just have to blow up the base in whatever way.
Now will someone help me with this WTC7 problem?
whhhaat??
discovery had a nice show on skyscrapers many many many (pre 9/11) years ago. They take ALL POSSIBILITIES INTO ACCOUNT AND TRY TO ENGINEER FOR THE UNTHINKABLE.
No one thinks the bay bridge was going to collapse or half of cali was going to fall down during that BIG fucking quake of 89, yet it did, so now we know better.
Obviously, when they build things lik that they KNOW that there i a possibility it might fall down, collapse, be bombed, attacked, wind, etc. They DO design them to fall inward if at all possible.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate


Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Seuss]
#2889733 - 07/14/04 01:03 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Skyscrapers do tend to fall straight down. The twin towers were supported by a middle column and the outer exoskeleton. The planes shattered the outside... and they crashed into the middle. The heat from the plane's fuel melted the middle column causing the upper floors to crush the building below. This caused an unreversable chain reaction floor on top of floor... as the buildings collapsed like a slinkey. The odd thing was they collapsed from above rather than from below. It is obvious from the videos that the towers started to colapse from the point of impact. With my own eyes, I could see the tops of the towers tilting off center before their collapse. And in the video, you will see the building above point of impact give way first, almost as if the top portions of the buildings were sheared off. That heavy, unsupported weight caused the upper floors to collapse in on themselves, one on top of the other. The floors were only connected to the center and side... not to the floors above and below them. I'm pretty sure the towers were attached to their foundation at the point of impact, or they would have toppled from the force of the planes. Don't believe me? Stand up straight, with your legs locked and have someone gently push you on the forhead with a finger. You will fall over. Now, have your friend do the same to a small tree firmly rooted in the ground. The pools of molten whatever at the base of the towers was residue from the 3 month long fire that was burning directly above them. No other building fire has lasted so long. Investigators have never seen such a thing as the WTC fire aftermath. As for WTC 7, it was damaged at the base from the collecting debris of the twin towers. I imagine workers wanted to have some control over when it fell so explosives may have been used. They did evacuate everyone when they knew it would come down. Either way, though, since the base of WTC 7 was damaged, it would look much more like a controled demolition than the two towers did, because it fell from the bottom up. No big surprise, the bottom was what was most damaged. The fire didn't help. That is my unofficial interpretation of the events.
-------------------- Fiddlesticks.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate


Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Rose]
#2889755 - 07/14/04 01:10 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
As for the owner, he only was able to collect half as much $$$ as he thought he could because the two towers counted as one terrorist act... not two... one for each plane. His insurance will not cover the monitary value of the archetecture that was lost.
-------------------- Fiddlesticks.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Seuss]
#2889864 - 07/14/04 01:34 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Most explosives will burn rather than detonate when exposed to fire Sorry Suess, couldn't let this one slip past. Obviously you didn't play with enough fireworks as a kid. If you throw explosives into a fire, they will definitely detonate as intended 99% of the time.
|
Barbi
Plastic Person

Registered: 04/22/02
Posts: 12,976
Last seen: 19 years, 6 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: ]
#2889916 - 07/14/04 01:44 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
someone should paste the link to the video on the net somewhere of the fireworks factory that caught fire..
it definately exploded.
|
mntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation


Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Seuss]
#2890004 - 07/14/04 02:01 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I went with one of two possibilities there. And I was thinking that most explosives today are very stable. So the other way I was going to go was that the fire would render the explosives or the firing mechinisms unusable. There would have to be some sort of electronic control to set them off right? I don't see how they could survive a fire of that magnitude.
Designed was the wrong word there. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over. There's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.
As far as the tempuratures and the molten metal goes. There is a very good chance that there could be temp spikes sufficiant to melt steel. Consider that a blast furnace that melts steel uses forced air to reach the temps needed to melt steel. Consider that the towers were filled with mostly air. Where did that air go while the buildings collapsed? It essentially created a blast furnace near the bottom up the building. With the juel and forced air the temps were much higher than the temp of fuel alone at least for a short time.
You caught the tater
-------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: mntlfngrs]
#2890054 - 07/14/04 02:14 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I used to work at an oil refinery. One time we had a seal blow on a pump handling jet fuel. The resulting fire melted steel in the pipeway above the pump within the 15 minutes it took to put the fire out - we had water on the fire probably within 3 minutes of it starting. The steel supporting the weight of the towers did not have to totally melt, it only needed to soften a bit to ruin it's load bearing capabilities.
-------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
trendal
J♠


Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: ]
#2890141 - 07/14/04 02:31 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Fireworks are made out of low-explosive materials like blackpowder...which ignite (but do not detonate) quite readily when burned.
Demolition charges and shaped-explosives use high-explosive materials which are MUCH harder to detonate, and will usually burn slowly in a fire instead of detonating.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?


Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2890294 - 07/14/04 03:02 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
illuminati
-------------------- All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
Aldous
enthusiast


Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 980
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 7 days, 52 minutes
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: Rose]
#2890316 - 07/14/04 03:07 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cervantes said:As for WTC 7, it was damaged at the base from the collecting debris of the twin towers. I imagine workers wanted to have some control over when it fell so explosives may have been used. They did evacuate everyone when they knew it would come down. Either way, though, since the base of WTC 7 was damaged, it would look much more like a controled demolition than the two towers did, because it fell from the bottom up. No big surprise, the bottom was what was most damaged. The fire didn't help.
Please, read my above arguments on this and answer them instead of plainly ignoring them.
How can you plan a controlled demolition in a matter of hours amidst the turmoil of the century, and how do you strap explosives to the foundations of a burning building that is about to collapse, and who volunteers for such a job (I know, they were heroes)?  Why were the official investigators (allegedly) unaware of the controlled demolition? 
|
Redo
CTA

Registered: 04/13/04
Posts: 1,296
Last seen: 18 years, 9 months
|
Re: the facts about 911 [Re: AhronZombi]
#2891230 - 07/14/04 07:48 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
And we have yet to still land on the Moon.
|
|