Why aren't the WTC tower construction drawings publicly available?

[NDBoston]

Real you've raised a very valid question. Quite a bit of information out there which won't be given too independent professionals for whatever reason. Good luck trying too get any kind of educated response from these guys though. This website has more radical ideas about 9-11 than I have seen anywhere. They're actually prescribing too the official Government explanation as if the Government never lies. The documents won't be released because it would only fuel a movement which apposes the official account. There's a growing number of Demolition experts out there who would love too have there hands on such a document.


Real I wish you the best, this website for the most part is a waste of time though. There is always going too be a group of people unwilling too accept an alternative. I'm actually writing a book on this condition and its a disease which affects quite large portion of the population pertaining too any subject. 911 is just another example, the root runs much deeper and I don't have the time too write a few hundred pages on this forum too explain any further.

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000258.htm

 

[~enigma~]

I'm actually writing a book on this condition and its a disease which affects quite large portion of the population pertaining too any subject. 911 is just another example, the root runs much deeper and I don't have the time too write a few hundred pages on this forum too explain any further.

I to am writing a book.

 

[beachnut]

I wasn't debating you and the shear number of individuals frequenting this site who accept the present U.S. government explanation, for the 3 high rise collapses in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001, and thus with whom I differ on this issue, may preclude one from getting back to everyone.

I am sorry if I can't engage everyone all of the time. I will take a closer look at your argument and respond.

When you are wrong and everyone knows it, and you can not respond, it proves you are wrong and have no facts or evidence to support your points. Why do you have fetish for the government explanation? No one needs the government explanation to know you are wrong. Did you know you can figure out 9/11 without a government explanation. And it is even easier to figure out you are wrong.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

realcddeal: You just going to ignore my post #117?

Forget the 7 minutes for the moment since you obviously think everyone is lying and part of the conspiracy.

Just explain the bowing that is CLEARLY visible in this video clip 7 seconds before the collapse begins. Can you do that?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&q=WTC&pl=true

The discussion was concerning the North Tower and Gravy's claim was that there was perimeter column bowing 7 minutes before the collapse. He hasn't been able to show it in a video and is avoiding the issue.

The clip you provide shows bowing of the South Tower columns seconds before the collapse a completely separate issue.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Realcd:

Question about your CD theory. You never seem to want to answer the question of one column impacting another. Are you saying that all surviving columns on the top impacted all on the bottom at the same time and evenly? In order for your calculations to have any bearing this seems to be the case.

Most of the columns weren't severed so how would they have an impact?

 

[DGM]

Most of the columns weren't severed so how would they have an impact?

Nice dodge! Answer the question. How will the bottom arrest the top if the columns do not all impact at the same time and evenly. You know what I mean.

 

[OldSchool]

Beechnut what an intelligent response you've made. Said a whole lot of nothing because you have nothing too say.

Too answer the question why I am here?

I decided too seek out a website which is severely apposed too any alternative too 9-11. This is a great opportunity for somebody in my position too witness first hand a large scale sociological and psychological event. Gives me an opportunity too take statistics which I couldn't normally have found. I'm not actually going to quote anybody here, I'm only categorizing responses by %.

I'm done collecting data too I simply wrote too Real because I felt as though he had a valid question. I'm not going too write any further posts here I may respond from time too time when I am around which won't be too often I promise.

 

[~enigma~]

I'm not going too write any further posts here I may respond from time too time when I am around which won't be too often I promise.

That's two bad...

 

[calebprime]

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000258.htm

Beechnut, what an intelligent response you've made. Said a whole lot of nothing because you have nothing to say.

To answer the question: why I am here?

I decided to seek out a website which is severely opposed to any alternative interpretation of the events of 9-11. This is a great opportunity for somebody in my position to witness first hand a large scale sociological and psychological event. It gives me an opportunity to collect some statistics which I wouldn't ordinarily have found. I'm not actually going to quote anybody here, I'm only categorizing responses by %.

I made some changes for you. I can't stand it.


Please learn to write if you do post more, and let us know how the 'statistics' are working out.

 

[beachnut]

Beechnut what an intelligent response you've made. Said a whole lot of nothing because you have nothing too say.

Too answer the question why I am here?

I decided too seek out a website which is severely apposed too any alternative too 9-11. This is a great opportunity for somebody in my position too witness first hand a large scale sociological and psychological event. Gives me an opportunity too take statistics which I couldn't normally have found. I'm not actually going to quote anybody here, I'm only categorizing responses by %.

I'm done collecting data too I simply wrote too Real because I felt as though he had a valid question. I'm not going too write any further posts here I may respond from time too time when I am around which won't be too often I promise.

You are a fraud. You have problems with your writing, and you have no new ideas on 9/11. You and 9/11 "truth" are a fraud. The weakest links in 9/11 truth always say they are doing a study on dolts or closed minded people. I have to say just interview yourself and you are done. It is extremely funny how ironic your posts become as you try to prove you are doing some advanced study. I feel for you, writing is my short suit also. Good luck with your study, and sorry your short suits include 9/11 facts, and writing.

 

[OldSchool]

Beechnut I doubt you even know what Sociology is. Its almost impossible too discuss any topic of controversy with somebody who is uniformed too the Existence and large scale practice of Sociology. Somebody who isn't aware of how Sociological actions of others have affected them throughout there life another issue too deal with. Just a taste of the focus of the book I am writing, however I am guessing your small mind has too much blockage too relate. If you're really military the blockage runs much deeper than I could help with, I am not a Psychologist.


Fraud- Deception made for personal gain.

I am actually the opposite, the book I am writing is going to expose Deception at all levels of human development.
I am going too make some money though so I guess the personal gain part does apply hopefully it does anyway.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Nice dodge! Answer the question. How will the bottom arrest the top if the columns do not all impact at the same time and evenly. You know what I mean.

To understand what I am about to say, first you have to understand that most of the columns weren't severed. Now that that is out of the way it is then a matter of the remaining columns all buckling at the same time. This would imply that the columns would fold over on each other and remain in contact. There really should not have been any freefall unimpeded impulse. The reality is that the only mechanism which could have caused the sudden onset, a higher than 1G impulse, and continuous collapse is if the columns were blown out of the way. Large columns don't just get out of the way of the upper portions in a buckling type of failure.

 

[rwguinn]

We typically use in-situ r.c. but I've seen a p.c. one going up quite recently on a six storey structure near the office. Caught my eye because it's a while since I'd seen one.



I wasn't trained in CAD at uni (1986-92) and didn't have to learn until about 94........Autocad 11, no less!

You mean you don't use monolithic pours any more? If it was good enougth for Boulder (Hoover) dam, it outta be goo enough for an office building!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You mean you don't use monolithic pours any more? If it was good enougth for Boulder (Hoover) dam, it outta be goo enough for an office building!

In your use of the term monolithic for the concrete pours are you saying the Boulder (Hoover) dam was poured in a continuous pour?

 

[kookbreaker]

You really seem sure that there was no need to test for explosive residue. I wonder if you would say that to a firefighter who said he saw, heard, or felt an explosion(s) well below the aircraft impact areas.

So you are retreating to your previous arguement and trying to hide behind the firemen, who incidently have stated nothing about actual bombs being in the building.

Why not do the testing and let it speak for itself? Usually when relatively inexpensive testing, considering the magnitude of the twin tower collapses, is resisted, it makes others think there is something to hide.

Where would you test? There are, what, over 200,000 tons of material in the building. Which pieces would you have us test? Because none of the peices show any signs of demolition use.

I don't understand your logic concerning your implication that the buildings would have had to collapse as soon as someone heard an explosion in one area of the building.

Can you name or show a demoltion project where, after the charges went off, there would be enough time for someone in the center of the building to escape before it collapses?

On the contrary, to what you say, there is structural evidence of highly focused energy on many core columns where the beam is bowed inward along the long edges of its cross section at the ends.

Uh, no, there is not.

A gravity collapse would be very unlikely to cause this type of local deformation on the ends only.

On the basis of what expertise do you base this?

However, an explosive blast can be shown to cause that type of damage in an experiment. These local deformations are distinct marks.

Wrong. Demolition cutting charges cut columns. They don't bend them into funny shapes. See this? This is what charges do to columns:

No bend. Cut.

As for detcord being needed, controlled demolitions are possible using radio control and no long detcord linking the explosives.

The claim of using radio control has to be the sign of the greatest engineering and science ignorance I have ever encountered in troofer land. Those who work with demolitions don't even like have radios on when they are using detcord. Yet you propose that a building with its own repeaters, in a city with probably more radio wave traffic than any other part of the world, someone thinks it would be a good idea to set up explosives that detonate by radio control. I'm sorry but that is an idiotic idea. It would be safer to have a lit match fight while wading a pool of gasoline.

 

[Gravy]

Are you actually claiming that these articles don't provide names of firefighter's who said they saw, heard, or felt explosions in the towers before and during the collapse?

Thank you for proving that you cannot provide the name of a single firefighter who thinks there were explosives in the buildings.

Your comment on the post I directed you to? Here it is again:
What They Heard: WTC First Responder Accounts In & Around the Towers

 

[Z]

Shouldn't the firefighter's testimony about seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions been taken to mean that explosives could have been involved and testing for explosive residue been done? If not, why would someone object to that type of testing being done in an investigation of the building collapses, given this testimony from the firefighters?

As others have mentioned, hearing explosions isn't the same as hearing explosives. Explosives have a peculiar sound - like a loud crack - and are unmistakable. Hearing 'explosions' usually means a thundrous crashing sound, or loud rumble - such as might be caused, say, by extremely heavy debris falling, or the sudden combustion of paint cans, cleaners, thinners, etc. as might be stored in any large office building. Firefighters hear 'explosions' in any large, excessive building fire.

As for objecting to such testing, I'm sure they wouldn't object at all, as long as someone else was footing the bill, using their own manpower and time, and didn't tamper extensively with large amounts of the debris. Of course, such tests would prove inconclusive, one way or the other - all of the chemical elements that make up explosives also exist in sizeable quantities in larger buildings. The only examinations that would prove explosives would be to sift through every ounce of the debris looking for bits of detonators, fuze cord, etc. Of course, this is a painstaking and time-consuming, tedious task, and I don't know anyone who's going to offer to do it when there's absolutely no reason to suspect explosives.

 

[AZCat]

You answered right about the dry vs. moist air question. I only asked to see if they would answer a technical question.

What?! No, he did not answer correctly. What kind of test is this if you don't even know the correct answer?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

What?! No, he did not answer correctly. What kind of test is this if you don't even know the correct answer?

AZCat, are you saying that dry air is lighter than moist air at the same temperature and pressure?

 

[Corsair 115]

As others have mentioned, hearing explosions isn't the same as hearing explosives. Explosives have a peculiar sound - like a loud crack - and are unmistakable. Hearing 'explosions' usually means a thundrous crashing sound, or loud rumble - such as might be caused, say, by extremely heavy debris falling, or the sudden combustion of paint cans, cleaners, thinners, etc. as might be stored in any large office building.

Our expectations of what certain things sound like has likely been conditioned to a great extent by what is depicted in Hollywood movies and television shows.

Of course, the sounds we hear in those movies and TV shows have little resemblance to how things actually sound.