• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Could the WTC columns have been covertly replaced by weaker versions?

bill smith said:
As you say Dash it could certainly be done. And when better than when WTC2 was pwered down for 36-odd hours the weekend before 9/11.
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html
Click to expand...

As they say at that link: This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36hrs from floor 50 up.

So you are going to bring in generators and fuel and cutting torches and repair supplies and haul them up how many floors? In which stairwell?

And when did you get the crane up there, and how?

And what about the other tower?
 
bill smith said:
As you say Dash it could certainly be done. And when better than when WTC2 was pwered down for 36-odd hours the weekend before 9/11.
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html
Click to expand...

What about this part?
Although the interviewer queries Forbes on several of the points noted above, Forbes fails to explain any of them
Click to expand...


Hey Bill, when you throw in "tons of thermite" number guessing on other threads, I should point out (You care not to) that you never consider putting 2 arguments together, simply because it shoots your theory down; 36 hrs and tons of thermite. So how could it be done in 1 1/2 days and with such precision, Bill?
 
bill smith said:
Just for fun Hans try listing the rreasons why the columns on the impact side couldn't have been replaced with lighter, weaker sacsimsiles or the originals just weakened. I mean only the sections in the impact area.
Click to expand...

Sure:

1) Somewhat hard to hide. I mean you would have to expose the columns, flame cut them, lug tons of steel down to street level and drive it away, then hoist other structures back up ant put them in place. Would take an awful lot of green netting to hide that. (and there was no green netting observed at any relevant time)

2) Rather risky weakening a functioning building.

3) Too many people involved.

4) Impossible to predict the exact impact area. Flying aircraft into buildings is not a well-rehearsed procedure.

5) Quite unnecessary, since the impact of a large aircraft would be certain to make spectacular damage.

I'm not going into the fact that there is no sensible motive for such an operation, except for this: Somehow, Truthers seem to be stuck to the idea that the whole purpose was to have the buildings collapse. However, that was not necessarily the most desirable scenario, not even for the actual terrorists. Quite as efficient a horror would be achieved if they burned like torches for days, with the people trapped above the collision zones slowly frying or jumping to their deaths, with desperate cellphone calls going out from them. And afterwards, the US would have a couple of burnt out, unstable hulks standing as monuments of the event, till they could be, at great danger, demolished or taken apart piece by piece.

As it were, the worst was over in a few hours, and the clean-up operation could commence, heart-breaking as that was.

Hans
 
bill smith said:
As you say Dash it could certainly be done. And when better than when WTC2 was pwered down for 36-odd hours the weekend before 9/11.
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html
Click to expand...

Obviously, you have no idea of how actual work is done. As said, it might have been possible, but it would have taken weeks, or even months, especially if it had to be done discreetly.

Let me give you a small riddle: Transport a five-ton, two stories long piece of steel down from the 76th of a very prominent building in the middle of a city that never sleeps, without anyone noticing.

Bill, give it up. You are not even whipping a dead horse. There was never a horse.

Hans
 
TsuDhoNimh said:
As they say at that link: This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36hrs from floor 50 up.

So you are going to bring in generators and fuel and cutting torches and repair supplies and haul them up how many floors? In which stairwell?

And when did you get the crane up there, and how?

And what about the other tower?
Click to expand...


Not wanting to continue to feed the trolling, but the "power down" claim is easily proved false. The way power was distributed in the towers, the power down described by troofers is not possible.

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/wtcprimaryandemergencyelectricalpower
 
Animal said:
Not wanting to continue to feed the trolling, but the "power down" claim is easily proved false. The way power was distributed in the towers, the power down described by troofers is not possible.

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/wtcprimaryandemergencyelectricalpower
Click to expand...

It's interesting though that Femr2 thought that the falling section may have come from the impact zone where I hypothesised that perimeter columns might have been weakened or replaced with something lighter. Then you have the rocket scenario of that falling section and another potential rocket scenario in the Scott Meyers video- possibly also from the area of the impact zone.

It would be great if the approximate weight of the falling section could be calculated but I guess that would be too much to expect. If it was a lot lighter than the expected 4 tons that might tell us something.

PS If you feel that I am trolling please do not reply to this post.
 
Last edited:
I hypothesised that perimeter columns might have been weakened or replaced with something lighter.
Click to expand...

Your hypothesis is worthless. It is physically impossible to do that work on that building with nobody noticing.

Period.
 
Bill, I don't understand the point of this speculation. The official collapse theories are refuted on so many other fronts, we hardly need to posit fake columns.

What's the point of this?
 
ergo said:
Bill, I don't understand the point of this speculation. The official collapse theories are refuted on so many other fronts, we hardly need to posit fake columns.

What's the point of this?
Click to expand...
You should know this. The more you bolster your "evidence" the better.

:rolleyes:
 
ergo said:
Bill, I don't understand the point of this speculation. The official collapse theories are refuted on so many other fronts, we hardly need to posit fake columns.

What's the point of this?
Click to expand...

The point of this is a Bill Smith fetish: He likes to put his foot in his mouth on a consistent basis.
 
Worth repeating:

Emery Roth & Sons said:
BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...

THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE...
Click to expand...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html#ref5
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Bill, I don't understand the point of this speculation. The official collapse theories are refuted on so many other fronts, we hardly need to posit fake columns.

What's the point of this?
Click to expand...

I used to be a no-planer Ergo. There is lots of evidence to back it up too but it still always seemed too far fetched to me. So I wondered if that evidence had been planted to promote the no planes theory right from the beginning,

There is no way that the planes flew through the 33 perimeter columns without losing big chunks of themselves on the outside so that was out for me .Yet no-planes was out too following my new line of thought. That only leaves real planes and weakened columns.

Do you believe that the jet flew into WTC2 through the 33 original columns ?
 
Last edited:
Is the forum running very very slow for the last few hours ? I can hardly post.
 
bill smith said:
Do you believe that the jet flew into WTC2 through the 33 original columns ?
Click to expand...

I believe something flew into it, and I believe that it would sever the columns. I have a hard time believing that the wings of an aircraft would not be ripped off and fall outside the buildings. But it's a minor point in a story full of unbelievable events.

[Edit: sorry, I didn't notice your reference to WTC 2. I had WTC1 and its famous "plane print" through the facade in mind.]

And yes, the JREF pages seem very slow to load. Frequently.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
I believe something flew into it, and I believe that it would sever the columns. I have a hard time believing that the wings of an aircraft would not be ripped off and fall outside the buildings. But it's a minor point in a story full of unbelievable events.

And yes, the JREF pages seem very slow to load. Frequently.
Click to expand...

When an aluminium plane hits an intense and solid steel grid (and actually cuts it's way through it) would you expect there to be smoke produced ?

Have a look at this video that you have probably seen a thousand times. What creates the smoke on impact ? It's not part of the fireball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5NNh6WnVZo&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL54A715119291AA49 hez video slo-mo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom