911's a joke

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
g.g. said:
A> Molten steel no proof? Now who's fibbing. It's all there documented, eyewitnessed, tested, etc. To deny molten steels existence at WTC is to lose the argument. It clearly exists and NIST tiptoe around it, fully aware of its existence.
Click to expand...
Link me to the test results if you're so sure. I don't trust eyewitnesses because they don't know for sure that it's steel, could easily be aluminium or other metals. Even is there was molten steel there was so little compared to how much would be produced through explosives and thermite charges.

B> Columns DO bow and floors sag....but WTC ITSELF, that building, not the AMP building in downtown Sydney, etc, was built to withstand all the fabricated details that are being puppeted. That building itself would NOT sag and bow given the particular science reputed to be the CAUSE of the effect. NIST itself dude. 42" inches required to cause pancake. Which is an effect where the floors collapse but the inner columns remain standing. The joints of the horiztontal floors are not powerful enough to drag the columns down and in. They break away after that optimum sagging required to cause the floors to fall.
Click to expand...
Did you not look at the pictures in that file. You can see the sagging and bowing!!!! Over 50 inches of bowing was observed. Floor trusses are visible hanging free from supports. It happened and pictures prove it.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

waspy....

Link me to the test results if you're so sure. I don't trust eyewitnesses because they don't know for sure that it's steel, could easily be aluminium or other metals. Even is there was molten steel there was so little compared to how much would be produced through explosives and thermite charges. Waspy, my friend. The test results are in the NIST report. Could you please locate them yourself? I really ought to get offline and back to work. Got nothing to do with eyewitnesses accounts. Molten steel fires burning three months later is indicative of "how much would be produced thru explosives and thermite charges".


Did you not look at the pictures in that file. You can see the sagging and bowing!!!! Over 50 inches of bowing was observed. Floor trusses are visible hanging free from supports. It happened and pictures prove it. Exactly! Test showed it required about 42" of sagging to cause a collapse of columns/floors FOR WTC specifically. What can cause enough heat to generate 42" of sagging? Not jet fuel. 1,000+ degrees for HOURS would cause 2 inches and not enough to cause floor collapse FOR WTC specifically. That there is 50" of bowing in the heavy grade steel is direct indication/evidence that thermite was used. Because it would require thermate to generate sufficient temperatures in such a small amount of time to cause 42"+ of bowing.
 
waspy said:
I thought i recognised that voice. You're using 9/11 Mysteries as a reference? Now you're getting desperate.

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/911_Mysteries_Viewers_Guide.pdf

The first video is debunked on page 42 and the 2nd video on page 19 and 20. Both 9/11 Mysteries and Loose Change are awful documentaries, they contain a new lie every minute.
Click to expand...

Now YOU'RE being desperate! Honestly, dude. I'm trying to show you THE VIDEO sequence where the principal designers mention the "multiple" plane quote that you freakin' asked for proof of!! Now you're turning that back against me?!! Just because 911 Mysteries etc USED that sequence as part of their documentary DOES NOT disprove what the guy said. That guy said that BEFORE 911 even happened. He died in the late 90's if I'm not mistaken.

Geezus, that's like saying because 911 Mysteries shows a video sequence of WTC collapsing that it never happened! Do you even realize the point? That principal designer was filmed/quoted saying that in some news take or whatever that has nothing to do with 911 itself, or any documentary on 911 after. It's just sourcing some archived film.
 
g.g. said:
Now YOU'RE being desperate! Honestly, dude. I'm trying to show you THE VIDEO sequence where the principal designers mention the "multiple" plane quote that you freakin' asked for proof of!! Now you're turning that back against me?!! Just because 911 Mysteries etc USED that sequence as part of their documentary DOES NOT disprove what the guy said. That guy said that BEFORE 911 even happened. He died in the late 90's if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...
I think he might have actually died in the collapse, but I'm not certain of that.
I linked to that guide because it clearly shows that his analogy was very much oversimplified.
The other video is even worse, the guide debunks it thoroughly.
 
NMWBloods said:
Yes, he stated he thought it could withstand the impact of multiple planes - just an off the cuff opinion as I saw it, rather than an analysis.
Click to expand...

Ok can we stop for a minute and backtrack, the both of you?

1> Waspy refuted the notion that WTC could withstand multiple plane strikes. He said he never heard such a quote. I told him there's a video of one of the principal designers/architects of WTC itself where he says that. Therefore, I proved that such a quote exists and that Waspy needs to take that into account.

2> While it's just an opinion of his. He does happen to be one of the principal designers/architects of WTC. His opinion carries a lot more weight than that dirty little girl's opinion I posted in a youtube video.

3> Bloods, did you not just go on and on previously about the validity of people's opinions? That coming from a nonexpert in the field wouldn't carry the same weight as someone from it? It is hypocritical of you to then say 'but that's just his opinion' about WTC's design and construction and what it can withstand. He would know even a lot more than structural engineers per se...as they did NOT even partake in the design/construction of WTC.

4> Also, there are plenty of structural engineers out there who echo the same disbelief with the Off Story. I posted a video in that same post of one such person. And you all know there are hundreds if not thousands of structural engineers who have spoken up about WTC collapse towards the negative. So, you can't discount their opinions either on the basis of a lack of expertize.

5> The very plans and blueprints exist. It's not just an off-the-cuff opinion. That opinion is supported by, and referenced from, the plans which go into the minute details and numbers related to the whole construction and load bearing etc. NIST refused to use them. But they exist. And they're reputable because the company and people who built the freakin' thing would know about their building. Don't forget these are all within the confines of standards and practices of US construction laws. A requirement.
 
g.g. said:
Waspy, my friend. The test results are in the NIST report. Could you please locate them yourself? I really ought to get offline and back to work. Got nothing to do with eyewitnesses accounts. Molten steel fires burning three months later is indicative of "how much would be produced thru explosives and thermite charges".

Exactly! Test showed it required about 42" of sagging to cause a collapse of columns/floors FOR WTC specifically. What can cause enough heat to generate 42" of sagging? Not jet fuel. 1,000+ degrees for HOURS would cause 2 inches and not enough to cause floor collapse FOR WTC specifically. That there is 50" of bowing in the heavy grade steel is direct indication/evidence that thermite was used. Because it would require thermate to generate sufficient temperatures in such a small amount of time to cause 42"+ of bowing.
Click to expand...
The NIST didn't have anything about tests on molten steel did they? Where did you get that information?
The thing is....sagging/bowing can all be explained through collapse due to impact + fire. It will then cause collapse as the steel weakens and loads increase to a certain critical point. Thermite seems like a wonderful way to explain how it happened for CT's. But thermite is completely redundant as a material in building demolition, it can't cut vertical beams. Hence it is never used in CD. Explosives....possible, but where is the cold, hard evidence, such as traces of explosives (none found). All you have is theory.
I'm getting tired of you just saying stuff without any evidence or knowledge of the specifics involved.
 
I accept that quote, absolutely.

The problem is....it is a quote from before 9/11 and there are no details on how big the planes are, how much fuel, where they hit etc. Also he didn't design the WTC, he was only hired in 1993 (and I've found out he did in fact die on 9/11 after saving many lives, a true hero). And you can't forget that other structural engineers have already proved that the impact can weaken the tower sufficiently to collapse. Their analysis is based on physics and not on what seems to be just an opinion.
 
waspy said:
The NIST didn't have anything about tests on molten steel did they? Where did you get that information?
The thing is....sagging/bowing can all be explained through collapse due to impact + fire. It will then cause collapse as the steel weakens and loads increase to a certain critical point. Thermite seems like a wonderful way to explain how it happened for CT's. But thermite is completely redundant as a material in building demolition, it can't cut vertical beams. Hence it is never used in CD. Explosives....possible, but where is the cold, hard evidence, such as traces of explosives (none found). All you have is theory.
I'm getting tired of you just saying stuff without any evidence or knowledge of the specifics involved.
Click to expand...


What exactly about this did you fail to grasp?

"Exactly! Tests showed it required about 42" of sagging to cause a collapse of columns/floors FOR WTC specifically. What can cause enough heat to generate 42" of sagging? Not jet fuel. 1,000+ degrees for HOURS would cause 2 inches and not enough to cause floor collapse FOR WTC specifically. That there is 50" of bowing in the heavy grade steel is direct indication/evidence that thermite was used. Because it would require thermate to generate sufficient temperatures in such a small amount of time to cause 42"+ of bowing."

Just saying stuff? I'm telling you the exact numbers that NIST itself formulated. It's in the NIST report. Go look it up. It's there. Why aren't you aware of this? Why am I? Yet because of that, you'll say that I'm just saying stuff and making it up. Like you did about the "multiple" quote.

I'm happy to provide links etc, especially for things that are hard to find. But the NIST report or sources that reference it directly are out there.
 
waspy said:
I accept that quote, absolutely.

The problem is....it is a quote from before 9/11 and there are no details on how big the planes are, how much fuel, where they hit etc. Also he didn't design the WTC, he was only hired in 1993 (and I've found out he did in fact die on 9/11 after saving many lives, a true hero). And you can't forget that other structural engineers have already proved that the impact can weaken the tower sufficiently to collapse. Their analysis is based on physics and not on what seems to be just an opinion.
Click to expand...

What difference does it make before or after 911? The thing was built to withstand multiple plane strikes. At least one minimum. Why does it have to come AFTER 911 to be valid? If it did anyway, everyone would still use it to say "typical CT". That it comes BEFORE 911 is far more valid therefore. There's no CT surrounding the building at all.

Structural engineers have postulated why and why not, both sides. So what? Just because there's plenty that say why doesnt mean therefore BY DEFAULT that the why not is lies. What gives you that impression? Clearly, and I've seen/read plenty, of official-story aligned analyses, where there are blatant lies, or misrepresentation of the facts, etc, used to come to their conclusions. The NIST report itself is one. That has been well-documented to be heavy with fallacies, distortions, inexact science, and neglected to take into account plenty of key testimony or evidence - like the WTC plans etc. Like any investigative science, you can arrive at differing conclusions if you leave out or put in different things. Even something like a criminal court hearing, leaving out evidence or testimony, will distort the judicial conclusion arrived at by the jurors. That often happens in legal cases too....where the prosecutors deliberately leave out evidence, or the court does not allow certain evidence or priors that would convict someone, and the case goes the other way. A perfect example would be the 911 Investigation itself! Which saw blatant lies from that side, destruction of documents to avoid, etc. You don't see the hounders for truth lying too much, you see the cover-uppers lying more often.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I've already conceded that perhaps the NIST report contains errors....that doesn't mean that its impossible for their theory to be true. The reality is that the tests were done in conditions that were probably much different to the actual WTC because it's just so hard to replicate that situation. Also remember that the bowing was not just due to fire, the weight of the tower above it obviously has an impact!
I'm never going to be able to convince you or other CT's that all your theories are rubbish, because you've already got your heart set on it, and vice-versa.
Please just understand that plane impact and fires CAN bring a tower down, and it's just a matter of how much burning/impact is needed. As stated earlier, in an extreme situation the tower will fall through just fire and planes. You can't deny this. Was the fire and impact big enough to cause collapse? I think so. Structural engineers think so. CT's, all of whom have failed to produce ONE paper to submit to a reputable journal, do not think it could happen the way it did. When I hear opinions from reputable sources stating that it was a CD, I'll listen. Afterall, I'm told by CT's that the evidence is just so convincing that surely they'll agree. :rolleyes:
 
waspy said:
I've already conceded that perhaps the NIST report contains errors....that doesn't mean that its impossible for their theory to be true. The reality is that the tests were done in conditions that were probably much different to the actual WTC because it's just so hard to replicate that situation. Also remember that the bowing was not just due to fire, the weight of the tower above it obviously has an impact!
I'm never going to be able to convince you or other CT's that all your theories are rubbish, because you've already got your heart set on it, and vice-versa.
Please just understand that plane impact and fires CAN bring a tower down, and it's just a matter of how much burning/impact is needed. As stated earlier, in an extreme situation the tower will fall through just fire and planes. You can't deny this. Was the fire and impact big enough to cause collapse? I think so. Structural engineers think so. CT's, all of whom have failed to produce ONE paper to submit to a reputable journal, do not think it could happen the way it did. When I hear opinions from reputable sources stating that it was a CD, I'll listen. Afterall, I'm told by CT's that the evidence is just so convincing that surely they'll agree. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


I'm just saying that WTC specifically (and youve got to do that, take each building on its own merits) could handle jet impact(s) + fire comfortably and not collapse. There ARE other buildings and structures that WOULD collapse due to plane impact and/or fire. But WTC itself is the moot point. However, fire alone cannot cause collapse of steel structure skyscrapers. That's just not possible. WTC7 being the point of reference there. There MAY well have been structural damage to the lower corner, and that COULD cause a collapse....BUT, NOT in the manner in which it collapsed. Fire alone has always been the official story too. Not structural damage. Their 911 Commission totally left that one alone. That's not only negligent but criminal and disturbing as it forms the basis of the supposed war on terror. To race off to spend trillions on wars to control oil, and 911 supposed justification of that action, they've failed miserably and criminally in spending 20 million investigating 911 thoroughly, transparently, and sincerely. If they did, they'd think, "better make sure of our findings before we race off and cause massive global problems and wars and accussing nations, as that would be a blunder".

But no, you can see the clear intent from the very start - cover-ups, destruction of documents and air traffic tapes, concealed pentagon footage, no proper investigation for years, fabricating the whole Iraq WMD UN farce, the anthrax lies, etc etc.
 
I am taking each building on its merits. The WTC will reach a critical point where it will collapse from fire and plane impact damage. Whether that point is at 9/11 levels (which I believe as do structural engineers) or whether it is furthur is obviously important. According to you, the impact of 4 planes, with heavy fuel loads, centered on a few floors which contain general office materials to burn, will not yet be at that critical point. How about 50 planes? Will the building still stand? Surely you must admit that the building will eventually fall if enough planes hit it and fires burn long enough to weaken steel to their collapse point. Given this, you must realise that there will be a critical point of collapse due to planes and fire alone. Agreed? Or will it survive 50 planes and the subsequent fire too? :rolleyes: Like I said, the critical point of collapse is all important, and we won't agree on it I'm sure. But I'd just like you to admit that the building will fall from plane impact and fire at a certain critical point.

Steel structures will fail due to fire alone at a critical point also. If the fire is hot enough to melt steel (it wasn't in WTC) then it will fail. In fact it will fail much before then, how much before? Again, it's open for debate. But please also understand that you are lying if you say that steel structures cannot collapse due to fire.

NIST report on WTC7 is coming out soon i think, I'm certain it will mention the damage (which was quite significant).
 
waspy said:
Please just understand that plane impact and fires CAN bring a tower down, and it's just a matter of how much burning/impact is needed. As stated earlier, in an extreme situation the tower will fall through just fire and planes. You can't deny this. Was the fire and impact big enough to cause collapse? I think so. Structural engineers think so. CT's, all of whom have failed to produce ONE paper to submit to a reputable journal, do not think it could happen the way it did. When I hear opinions from reputable sources stating that it was a CD, I'll listen. Afterall, I'm told by CT's that the evidence is just so convincing that surely they'll agree. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Waspy, just curious as to what you make of this picture?

Remember that apparently crash stripped column fire proofing and 10,000 gall of fuel combined with contents created a fire so large that it similtaneously effected all columns.

Was she superwoman?

woman_wtc.jpg
 
g.g. said:
2> While it's just an opinion of his. He does happen to be one of the principal designers/architects of WTC. His opinion carries a lot more weight than that dirty little girl's opinion I posted in a youtube video.

3> Bloods, did you not just go on and on previously about the validity of people's opinions? That coming from a nonexpert in the field wouldn't carry the same weight as someone from it? It is hypocritical of you to then say 'but that's just his opinion' about WTC's design and construction and what it can withstand. He would know even a lot more than structural engineers per se...as they did NOT even partake in the design/construction of WTC.
Click to expand...
Yes, he would know more than the man in the street (or internet), but my point was he was not giving a detailed analysis, but simply making an off-the-cuff remark. Also, he was not involved in the original design and construction. It was not designed to withstand mutiple plane impacts - it was designed to ensure it could withstand the impact of one. And as it turned out it did withstand the impact of one plane.

"We designed the towers to resist the accidental impact of a Boeing 707, perhaps lost in the fog while seeking to land. The impact of the Boeing 767s, commandeered by the terrorists, even though larger and flying much faster, was still unable to bring down the towers. The fire-resistive systems, however, did not and could not have contemplated the subsequent fire fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel. "

http://www.lera.com/sep11.htm

4> Also, there are plenty of structural engineers out there who echo the same disbelief with the Off Story. I posted a video in that same post of one such person. And you all know there are hundreds if not thousands of structural engineers who have spoken up about WTC collapse towards the negative. So, you can't discount their opinions either on the basis of a lack of expertize.
Click to expand...
Hundreds?
 
NMWBloods....

Yes, he would know more than the man in the street (or internet), but my point was he was not giving a detailed analysis, but simply making an off-the-cuff remark. Also, he was not involved in the original design and construction. It was not designed to withstand mutiple plane impacts - it was designed to ensure it could withstand the impact of one. And as it turned out it did withstand the impact of one plane.

"We designed the towers to resist the accidental impact of a Boeing 707, perhaps lost in the fog while seeking to land. The impact of the Boeing 767s, commandeered by the terrorists, even though larger and flying much faster, was still unable to bring down the towers. The fire-resistive systems, however, did not and could not have contemplated the subsequent fire fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel. " See Corpuscles post above

Hundreds? Easily
 
I don't think a single photo by itself adds a lot to the evidence.

I haven't seen any sign of the hundreds of structural engineers. Have you pasted evidence of this previously?
 
What he is asking is...why has not ONE of them submitted a paper on the collapse to a journal for peer review? I assume some of these hundreds (which would still be a tiny fraction of the total number of structural engineers) have done thorough enough research to put together a paper. The reality is that nobody has, or is likely to ever, submit a paper because the cold, hard evidence just isn't there.

Corpuscles said:
Waspy, just curious as to what you make of this picture?

Remember that apparently crash stripped column fire proofing and 10,000 gall of fuel combined with contents created a fire so large that it similtaneously effected all columns.

Was she superwoman?
Click to expand...
Don't treat this as a minor crash when it clearly wasn't. The tower shook so violently immediately after the crash that some occupants actually thought it was going to fall over right then. Do you seriously believe that a plane travelling at 500mph with a heavy load of fuel would not dislodge at least some of the fireproofing? Survivors in the building said that ceiling tiles and other materials broke off on impact on floors far away from the impact zone. If it can have that sort of affect there, imagine how violently the columns are going to be shook on impact floors. The fireproofing (which was not thick enough anyway) was always under threat. Not all columns were affected by the impact, nor did they need to be. Once a critical number of columns are severely damaged or severed, the tower will fail.

I want you to address my previous post please. Do you believe that the towers will never reach a point where fire/plane damage or fire alone will bring them down?
 
NMWBloods said:
I haven't seen any sign of the hundreds of structural engineers. Have you pasted evidence of this previously?
Click to expand...

There probably have not been well publicised hundreds. It is not likely that an engineer would have the motivation to end or limit his career by challenging the structural integrity of buildings in NY or govt. They did not have access to the key data even Greening guessed (good job) his factors

Here is one Engineer- pretty lame

He has got the time of 'free' fall wrong, now widely accepted as 13-16 secs but makes the obvious comments about Conservation of Momentum and the expected slower breakup from fire observations
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Geoff
The Joke that is the West Australian Liberal Party
2 3
Replies
59
Views
3K
blueboy25
blueboy25
Aristotle Pickett
Vic The joke that is the Victorian Liberal Party.
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
135
Views
6K
Saint
Saint
JackOutback
Play Nice Maths is not for joking people about.
2
Replies
30
Views
678
GreyWind
GreyWind
Carringbush2010
  • Poll
Society/Culture The seemingly growing anti 'western' sentiment in 'western' societies.
18 19 20 21 22
Replies
541
Views
13K
barreness
barreness
Chief
Society/Culture "Sensitive Events" - Google tells advertisers they will mess with stuff...
Replies
4
Views
734
Number37
Number37
B
  • Locked
Society/Culture White people arent so bad afterall
Replies
1
Views
589
Malifice
Malifice
Cmarsh
The Law Should assisted dying access be extended to the mentally ill?
Replies
20
Views
929
nobbyiscool
N

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top