All 9/11 ideas welcomed here

[R.Mackey]

I guess this hidden portion of the building falling or the rubble pile being totally out of the footprint is not worth most sites reporting on it, since it's not on the most popular sites out there!

Argumentum ad populum... Don't look at "popular" sites, look at legitimate ones. The best resource is, perhaps, the FEMA WTC 7 report, at least until NIST finishes theirs. You have to contact FEMA for a hard copy since they no longer host the document on the Net, and it's difficult to find one that hasn't been vandalized by idiots. However, you can find a pristine edition here.

Look at Figure 5-12 for a schematic of the debris field after WTC 7 collapsed. Note how it leans against the Verizon building and extends across Barclay Street, to hit 30 West Broadway. Figure 5-26 gives an aerial photograph confirming the schematic and showing the spread of rubble in those directions, as well as towards the Post Office.

IF you have it post it...but dont give me your opinion just give me FACTS!! That's why I am asking an EXPERT! I am tired of your comments Slay, please stop your foolishness or you will get reported!

If you don't believe FEMA, there are several residents of NYC on this forum who can corroborate these observations. I therefore state these as facts.

Thus, no collapsing "into its own footprint." Not a single thing about the collapse suggests explosives or deliberate sabotage of any kind.

The experts have spoken.

 

[gumboot]

You've read the entire timeline, compared all the stories with their sources, investigated other sites to confirm stories and it took you a few days lol...it would take you atleast a few months if you were a really good reader! Yet, nothing sparked your concern? I don't believe you've read much of it at all!

No, it didn't take me "a few days". It took me about six months. I started reading it in January last year, and didn't join these forums until after I finished it.

I didn't read every news article it linked to, partly because a lot of the links didn't work, and partly because there was no real need to.

I've been studying 9/11 ever since, and still have a lot more to study regarding the attacks.

The only thing in the entire 9/11 story that especially concerns me is that I wish to know what the reasoning was behind keeping Bush in the school, and who made that decision.

I have a pretty good grasp on everything else (although there's always details to learn).

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

I'm just saying, look at the articles, if huge agencies like the london guardian dont retract articles that seem suspicious don't we have a right to question the official story if it contradicts it atleast to some degree?

News agency very rarely issue retractions, and when they do they make them as small as possible.

Granted some of the articles seem forced in, but given that there is usually tons of articles mentioning just about every viewpoint of the story....we can't really call the authors biased one way, or at least for most of the sections!

I totally disagree. Paul Thompson is grossly biased. He's a fraud and a manipulator. He is not a researcher at all. He makes no effort to cross reference or determine the validity of the articles he cites, and he makes grossly stupid speculative conclusions based on these articles. He seldom offers more than one or two articles on a given point, and they often come from a common original source.

There are plenty of good ways for agencies to collect info without spying on people! It's called news reporting, and doing investigations that are legal, with warrants and such!

Did you actually read what was written?

They followed the letter of the law before 9/11 at it failed.

Can you not see the hypocrisy of criticising the new laws such as the PAtriot Act, while simultaneously criticising the FBI and CIA for failing to stop the plot pre-9/11? You cannot have both.

-Gumboot

 

[PhantomWolf]

I believe that WTC 7 fell so well within its own footprint that one of the nearby buildings it didn't hit, wasn't demolitioned due to the serious damage it didn't sustain during the perfect collapse. Or something like that.

 

[gumboot]

so R. Mackey is an expert in CD's? lol given the dumb picture...what about thermite?

Thermite is not an explosive and is not used in building demolitions.

and what buildings did wtc7 hit when it fell because from the videos i see it falls straight down!

It fell on 30 West Broadway (which was on the opposite side of a 4-lane street).

whats the odds of fire burning a bean that would take the building out and bring it down so smoothly and in a straight down fashion? Odds are higher that fire would melt 1 part, and not so much on another part and the building would fall lopsided!

Not really... I don't think anyone would suggest that it collapsed due to a single beam failure. Don't forget the building had severe structural damage.

-Gumboot

 

[Slayhamlet]

Israelside, why must you impute your shortcomings onto others? I mean in particular your refusal to do your own research, while at the same time unjustifiably accusing others of not doing theirs. It is most unbecoming.

 

[israelside]

Argumentum ad populum... Don't look at "popular" sites, look at legitimate ones. The best resource is, perhaps, the FEMA WTC 7 report, at least until NIST finishes theirs. You have to contact FEMA for a hard copy since they no longer host the document on the Net, and it's difficult to find one that hasn't been vandalized by idiots. However, you can find a pristine edition here.

Look at Figure 5-12 for a schematic of the debris field after WTC 7 collapsed. Note how it leans against the Verizon building and extends across Barclay Street, to hit 30 West Broadway. Figure 5-26 gives an aerial photograph confirming the schematic and showing the spread of rubble in those directions, as well as towards the Post Office.

If you don't believe FEMA, there are several residents of NYC on this forum who can corroborate these observations. I therefore state these as facts.

Thus, no collapsing "into its own footprint." Not a single thing about the collapse suggests explosives or deliberate sabotage of any kind.

The experts have spoken.

that fema report is nice, but the images don't show anything new to me...the rubble pile (fig 5-26) does seem intact, but it's not the rubble pile we should worry about, it's the building falling. Do you have any more video clips of the building collapsing, other than the ones on youtube, cbs and the street one?
Ok, once again, when a 47 foot steel frame skyscraper falls some debris will fly as far as fig 5-12 suggests, and the outer facing will fall into the street next to it (fig 5-26) but MOST of the building fell in the footprint, which is what is expected for a CD (if it was one)! I mean we cant see the video at the end of the collapse. We can't tell if some of the debris skidded off in the street, but that doesn't matter. The building fell straight down, with a kink, and the odds of that happening under burning conditions is completely RARE, you are blind if you fail to see this sir....if you have vide of portions of the building falling off (not the penthouse on top) into the street prior the collapse i would like to see it....also remember, a chuck of the towers supposidly created a huge gash 20 stores high in wtc 7 the rubble near wtc 6 is caused by that i imagine....as for rubble near 30 west broadway, it nicked the side of the building, it could have been a couple beams on the way down...this is ignorance talk now, you have to be an idiot to think this building didnt fall down into its own footprint (for the most part), if a CD expert saw this wreckage, he probably would be happy with it, if he destroyed wtc 7.

 

[gumboot]

that fema report is nice, but the images don't show anything new to me...the rubble pile (fig 5-26) does seem intact, but it's not the rubble pile we should worry about, it's the building falling. Do you have any more video clips of the building collapsing, other than the ones on youtube, cbs and the street one?
Ok, once again, when a 47 foot steel frame skyscraper falls some debris will fly as far as fig 5-12 suggests, and the outer facing will fall into the street next to it (fig 5-26) but MOST of the building fell in the footprint, which is what is expected for a CD (if it was one)! I mean we cant see the video at the end of the collapse. We can't tell if some of the debris skidded off in the street, but that doesn't matter. The building fell straight down, with a kink, and the odds of that happening under burning conditions is completely RARE, you are blind if you fail to see this sir....if you have vide of portions of the building falling off (not the penthouse on top) into the street prior the collapse i would like to see it....also remember, a chuck of the towers supposidly created a huge gash 20 stores high in wtc 7 the rubble near wtc 6 is caused by that i imagine....as for rubble near 30 west broadway, it nicked the side of the building, it could have been a couple beams on the way down...this is ignorance talk now, you have to be an idiot to think this building didnt fall down into its own footprint (for the most part), if a CD expert saw this wreckage, he probably would be happy with it, if he destroyed wtc 7.

STOP LYING.

WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint. It fell across Barclay Street, which is FOUR LANES WIDE, and also damaged surrounding buildings, including 30 West Broadway which was on the opposite side of Barclay Street, and was so badly damaged it too had to be torn down.

Got it?

Not in footprint.

-Gumboot

 

[R.Mackey]

that fema report is nice, but the images don't show anything new to me...the rubble pile (fig 5-26) does seem intact, but it's not the rubble pile we should worry about, it's the building falling. Do you have any more video clips of the building collapsing, other than the ones on youtube, cbs and the street one?

"Nothing new" to you? It refutes your earlier statement.

Ok, once again, when a 47 foot steel frame skyscraper falls some debris will fly as far as fig 5-12 suggests, and the outer facing will fall into the street next to it (fig 5-26) but MOST of the building fell in the footprint, which is what is expected for a CD (if it was one)! [blah blah blah]

Ridiculous. You expect MOST of the building to fall into its own footprint NO MATTER WHAT. Moving it aside takes energy, or more specifically thrust. Where is this supposed to come from? Not even explosives will do that.

No more arguments from personal incredulity. Either you start backing up your statements, or don't make them at all. You claimed you wanted experts? I gave them to you. Read, and learn, or else be ignored.

 

[israelside]

Can you not see the hypocrisy of criticising the new laws such as the PAtriot Act, while simultaneously criticising the FBI and CIA for failing to stop the plot pre-9/11? You cannot have both.

-Gumboot

No, the patriot act goes far beyond any constitutional given rights and infringes on the publics affairs, the agencies DID NOT DO THEIR JOB (they said "we failed you"), not because they didn't have enough resources but because they just didn't get it done! The CIA has technology 10 years in advanced, even before 911....they had everything they needed to stop any attack, even a huge one like on 9/11, they did nothing, the articles prove it on the timeline....the patriot act is an act of helplessness, "give the fools more power because they failed the first time", not because they lacked resources but because they didn't do their job, or possibly because someone told them not to?? haha, we might not ever know! I think the agencies could be given greater access to each others documents without the sweeping measures the patriot act took upon the public!

 

[israelside]

Israelside, why must you impute your shortcomings onto others? I mean in particular your refusal to do your own research, while at the same time unjustifiably accusing others of not doing theirs. It is most unbecoming.

I am always researching, I am not done, but the things I have studied I can speak about, the things you havn't studied I can point out. What's unbecoming is your lack of answers, can anyone answer the question i originally posted? A true CD expert or a true building designer...that's all, or a link to a site that has the answers by one. Another question I have, has anyone done or seen someone do an actual reenactment of the collapse of the towers? Not computer simulation, but an actual on camera, accurate reenactment of the towers collapse? That would be cool to see, if I had money and time I would do it myself..

 

[Slayhamlet]

Can you not see the hypocrisy of criticising the new laws such as the PAtriot Act, while simultaneously criticising the FBI and CIA for failing to stop the plot pre-9/11? You cannot have both.

-Gumboot

No, the patriot act goes far beyond any constitutional given rights and infringes on the publics affairs, the agencies DID NOT DO THEIR JOB (they said "we failed you"), not because they didn't have enough resources but because they just didn't get it done! The CIA has technology 10 years in advanced, even before 911....they had everything they needed to stop any attack, even a huge one like on 9/11, they did nothing, the articles prove it on the timeline....the patriot act is an act of helplessness, "give the fools more power because they failed the first time", not because they lacked resources but because they didn't do their job, or possibly because someone told them not to?? haha, we might not ever know! I think the agencies could be given greater access to each others documents without the sweeping measures the patriot act took upon the public!

The CIA does not have technology tens year in advance of everyone else. Stop spouting baloney and start backing up what you say with some evidence.

 

[israelside]

haha, just admit that you all are wrong...not enough evidence.

 

[Tbone]

haha, just admit that you all are wrong...not enough evidence.

Well, I'm convinced.

 

[israelside]

The CIA does not have technology tens year in advance of everyone else. Stop spouting baloney and start backing up what you say with some evidence.

I have heard they do from friends in govt offices and just rumors, I will admit I dont know 100%, but do you know 100% that they don't?? If so how? Answer it!

 

[Slayhamlet]

I am always researching, I am not done, but the things I have studied I can speak about, the things you havn't studied I can point out. What's unbecoming is your lack of answers, can anyone answer the question i originally posted? A true CD expert or a true building designer...that's all, or a link to a site that has the answers by one. Another question I have, has anyone done or seen someone do an actual reenactment of the collapse of the towers? Not computer simulation, but an actual on camera, accurate reenactment of the towers collapse? That would be cool to see, if I had money and time I would do it myself..

No, of course a re-enactment hasn't been done. A truly accurate re-enactment would have to be done exactly to scale, as most of the natural phenomena present in the World Trade Center leading up to the collapse cannot not be reproduced on a small scale. A full-scale re-enactment would entail rebuilding the entire WTC and smashing planes into it just to see the whole thing collapse again. It would cost more than the entire WTC and the planes involved together. Billions in other words. Does that sound like a reasonable proposition to you?

You are a like little child in a grownup's world.

 

[Slayhamlet]

haha, just admit that you all are wrong...not enough evidence.

How old are you? No, really.

 

[Mobyseven]

israelside:

Thermite. Is. Not. An. Explosive.

 

[Slayhamlet]

I have heard they do from friends in govt offices and just rumors, I will admit I dont know 100%, but do you know 100% that they don't?? If so how? Answer it!

I'm not entirely sure your friends aren't imaginary.

 

[israelside]

No, of course a re-enactment hasn't been done. A truly accurate re-enactment would have to be done exactly to scale, as most of the natural phenomena present in the World Trade Center leading up to the collapse cannot not be reproduced on a small scale. A full-scale re-enactment would entail rebuilding the entire WTC and smashing planes into it just to see the whole thing collapse again. It would cost more than the entire WTC and the planes involved together. Billions in other words. Does that sound like a reasonable proposition to you?

You are a like little child in a grownup's world.

I am 23, i go to baylor and as for your post. A small scale could be done, why not? Assure the beams were correct and the structure....then hit em with model planes or something to make the holes, if that fell then it would be plausible for the towers to come down normally. It would be cool to see thats all. Do you ever laugh? Heaven forbid I act like someone who enjoys themselves, my philosophies are not immature or ignorant like you want to portray...you should be banned from ever posting to forums again, you give nothing!!