Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oystein said:
This is so obviously wrong, it is hard to come up with an idea how to make it even more obvious to you, who can't grasp the simple concept that buckked steel becomes a liability, not a support, to a structure. Remember, we are talking about stage 2, which is AFTER the strructural steel in question has buckled inelastically and completely.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence to support this. Bring it.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Global release of the energy of over 130 TONS of TNT into its basic footprint.
Yeah that's going to happen.
Yeah that's going to happen twice.
Yeah that's going to happen three times.
Click to expand...
Does "basic footprint" actually mean anything, or is it just one of those Truther buzzwords? Because something covering, what, more than five times its footprint after the collapse doesn't sound like a "basic footprint".

Clayton Moore said:
I guess explosions impaling buildings with multi ton beams would expand the footprint.

http://www.reopen911.org/ReOpen911_2007Archive/images/towerexplosions2.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7053335&postcount=203
Click to expand...
Note how he switches from "basic footprint" to "beams flung away from the structure" without drawing a breath.

Others have taken you up on the means, I'd like to make a point about the motive. Specifically, what on earth kind of demo actively flings beams out of the building, and why would the conspirators employ such a feature in their plan?
 
Last edited:
Justin39640 said:
I assume you haven't heard of a little thing called the east mechanical penthouse? I guess it just deflated. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The illumniati was done with it so they picked it up and flew it away for their next project. Didn't you not see the invisible helicopter that you couldn't hear due to the stealth* nature of it carry it away in a perfectly timed operation?




*They used the same choppers when they didn't kill Bin Laden - the photos prove it!
 
I note that the entire rest of my post disappeared.

tempesta29 said:
Except they didn't quite align with your language according to those who actually came in contact with them.
Click to expand...
It would be in the best interest of the hijackers to make as little fuss as possible before they actually took over the planes. This would lead to people thinking they're the quiet, unobtrusive sort. Why don't you go and find testimonials about their personalities from before they entered the US? Do you think that being a quiet sort necessarily excludes someone from ever killing other men in hot or cold blood?
And no, in fact, they at least took control of flight 93's cockpit. Thankfully they were shot down.
Click to expand...
No, the passengers fought back and the hijackers flew the plane into the ground on purpose.

If there was a shoot-down, why would They let it happen in their intricately planned scheme? Why would the gov't cover up such a shoot-down? You'd think they'd be crowing about the one bit of successful they'd had that day. What jet and pilot supposedly did the shooting, and where could they have come from? What evidence is there there was anything in intercept range?
 
Last edited:
tempesta29 said:
Yeah brilliant stuff. Not only have buildings of those size and strength never been demolished, but these CDs would not have been intended to minimize collateral damage at all. In fact the more professional the execution the more the illusion would falter.
Click to expand...
So when Truthers insist that the buildings were bought down, neatly, in what "looks" exactly like a CD, they're wrong. Thanks, T29.

tempesta29 said:
What is it much like then? A collapse due to debris damage? Find me one video of a large building damaged on one side that did anything but topple in that direction.
Click to expand...
Debris damage and fire.

Oh, and tri, it's Straw Man. Where's my no-prize?
 
sylvan8798 said:
Wait a minute...I thought truthers didn't believe there were terrorist hijackers? Now you are saying we shot down a plane with some on it in the middle of our false flag attack?

:boxedin: I'm so confused...:boggled:
Click to expand...


Oooo... Maybe Flight 93 was the only actual hijacking that, by total coincidence, occurred during this massively complicated false flag operation. :tinfoil
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Apparently what you can't see inside the building does not exist, seems to be a favorite among the TM group
Click to expand...


Ehh... They seem to take the fact that we couldn't see what was going on inside the building as reason to dismiss anything reasonable and substitute whatever tickles their fancy. "Thermal expansion? Puh-shaw! Silent explosives are more likely, which is exactly what was used!"

tempesta29 said:
This is measurably false.
Click to expand...


The eastern mechanical penthouse would beg to differ.
 
tempesta29 said:
There is no evidence to support this. Bring it.
Click to expand...

You overlooked post 6643.
Or you did not understand it.

The fact that during stage 1, the north face fell at increasing acceleration, but less than g, means: The supporting structure below still resisted, but less and less as it buckled more and more.
Stage 2 is reached when the increasing acceleration / buckling reached the point where the north face fell essentially at g means that by then, all columns had buckled. If you disagree with this last statement, you disagree with your own claims.
 
tempesta29 said:
This is measurably false.
Click to expand...
Where is your evidence? Why do you make such a big post? You might run out of evidence?

911 truth can't figure out the inside was collapsing first and the entire collapse is over 15 seconds. Much slower than "free-fall". Infinite failure is in store for 911 truth on this issue.

Look it up, what is the primary energy in a CD? Let me give you the answer to save you time, the explosives in a CD are not the energy that destroys the buildings, E=mgh is the potential energy used to destroy the buildings in CD. Building like WTC 7 and the towers would be dismantled due to the extreme energy if the building collapsed.

Why has 911 truth failed to earn a Pulitzer for the crack pot ideas they have and you seem to support with no evidence? What will 911 truth do for the 10th anniversary of failure? Sell books, DVDs, and beg for money to lobby for a new investigation; which in this case means bilk the gullible and do nothing but make money for a fringe few of the fringe few who can't think for themselves. Don't study the evidence and gain knowledge and skills to understand 911. 911 truth is counting on a few fringe to remain in ignorance so they can sell someone the lies.
 
tempesta29 said:
This is measurably false.
Click to expand...
Utter balderdash. The penthouse had disappeared into the interior of the building a good ten seconds before the roof began downward movement. This is clear to anyone watching the video and notng details.

As for the damage on the corner of the building, this may have compromised overall structural integrity to some dgree, putting unusual stress on undamaged structural elements, but that would hardly have been the only way in which it contributed to the collapse.

There is absolutely no question that that gaping hole provided a good source of air to the fires. From what I can make out of the graphics of heat distribution inside the building, the chimney effect directed most of the heat of the fires toward those structuralelemnts inside that failed. Your reasoning does not stand up to scrutiny because it leaves out too many processes.
 
triforcharity said:
They had what appears to be one (possibly 2" or 1 1/2") handline. What they are spraying is unclear.

I can assure you that there would never had been enough pressure to get a hose to the 7th floor or above in 7WTC. Too much hose would have had to be stretched into an unstable structure, further endangering firefighters' lives unnecessarily.

Stop pretending you know the first thing about fire or firefighting, because it's obvious that you do not.
Click to expand...
Basic physics is against you when it comes to getting firefighting water into multi storey building fires. Remember that Water pressure == height. For the Sydney area the reticulation systems were designed for a minimum pressure of 50feet head. That is 22.7 psi. Most areas had at least double that most of the time - that minimum would be at the top of the highest point in the supply zone at the late afternoon peak demand in a summer heatwave. Any less than that at peak load showed that it was time to lay some bigger incoming trunk mains. But whilst bigger mains will supply more water - they won't get it any higher than the pressure in the mains - pressure equals height.

For the Sydney CBD it was double that so 100 feet. And that is as high as the water would go without additional pumping and nothing left to provide the energy to squirt as a jet from the hose. The standard dated from the era when the tall buildings were ten storeys or less - the first 23 storey came to Sydney 1950's with a high rise boom in the '60's.

With all supply mains intact it was simple fact that the firefighters would take all that was available - the fire appliance pumps dragging the supply mains pressures down.

I have no knowledge of design pressures in NY. Given the height of buildings they could have well designed for a higher supply pressure but going much higher starts to cause water hammer problems and standard plumbing fittings don't like the pressure to be a lot higher.

Then for tall buildings - anything over single digit number of floors - typically 5 or 6 - fire fighting water is provided for by tanks in the building and the pumps to feed them. As with all such installations they were designed to give sufficient supply to hold a normal office fire at bay for the time needed for fire fighters to combat the anticipated typical office fire. And in conjunction with fire resistant materials and so called "fire proofing".

Bottom line is "don't expect town water mains pressure to provide the water to fight fires in multi storey buildings".

That's the (Australian) water supply engineer's perspective - I'll leave the actual firefighter's side of the picture to leftysergeant et al. And the US practice to anyone who is familiar with it - the picture won't be a lot different - the physics is the same.
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
Hi Chris7,

A couple things: A real answer to your rhetorical question... sometimes I have to see things twice before it sinks in. Ask Oystein or Ryan Mackey. I try their patience too. Correction accepted and made, just in time (final recording Monday).
Click to expand...
No worries mate, Thank you for making the correction.

I have the ABC video and another video of smoke POURING out of multiple floors from Building 7 late in the afternoon, clearly not just smoke hanging onto the side of the building due to wind. It was a BIG fire, unless you don't believe the videos and multiple firefighter reports.
Click to expand...
Please post the video. I have seen all the videos and there is nothing showing anything other than smoke being pulled into the low pressure area. NIST studied all the videos and firefighter's reports. They determined that there were no verifiable fires other than the ones they listed on pages 19-21 in their final report.

NCSTAR 1A pg 19-21 [pdf pg 61-63]
Shortly after 2:00 p.m., there was a fire on the west side of the 7th floor, spreading north along the west face.

The fire on the 11th floor . . . . . . was first observed at 2:08 p.m.

Fire was first seen on the 12th floor at 2:08 p.m., toward the south end of the east face.

13th floor fire was seen at about 2:30 p.m. on the east side of the floor.

The 8th floor fire also spread clockwise. At about 3:40 p.m., a broad fire was first seen spreading east from the center of the north face.

There were no indications of fire on the 9th floor until shortly before 4:00 p.m.

A fire was seen briefly on the north face of the 14th floor, about halfway between the midpoint and the northeast corner, at 5:03 p.m. No fire was evident in images taken a few minutes before and a few minutes after this time.

1A pg 29 [pdf pg 71]
There was no confirmed evidence of fires on other floors of WTC 7.


Water at 1:30? Is this true Tri? Even so, that leaves several hours till 5:20. And at what time did chief Nigro pull his firefighters away? At that point firefighting efforts ceased, water or no water.
Click to expand...
At 2:30 p.m., there were fires on floors 7, 11, 12 and 13.

NCSTAR 1-9 pg 304 At approximately 2:30 p.m., FDNY gave the order to forego firefighting activity and for[FONT=&quot] personnel to withdraw to a safe distance from the building.
[/FONT]
 
Oystein said:
The image C7 posted shows a hose that has water. There is no telling where that water came from - hauled in in a tank? It is by no stretch of the imagination proof that WTC7 had water.
Click to expand...
Your imagination is limited. They could have stretched a hose to WTC 7, hooked it to a standpipe and shut off the main valve to keep the water from flowing out that way. This would have pressurized the standpipe in WTC 7.
 
hi Chris7,

It's an ABC video of smoke pushing out of windows on multiple floors, my tech guy clipped it into my Powerpoint but I have NO IDEA how to post it... sorry. But it'll be in my YouTube videos next week with an ABC credit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom