World Trade Center - 15 years - Who did it? - Page 147 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Controversial News and Alternative Politics The conspiracy theory section

Advertise Here
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
United States Flag That was Flying On the World Trade Center. mastersergeant General Discussion 2 01-09-2017 09:36 PM
Eerie sound heard coming from One World Trade Center.. Renegade Ziggy Controversial News and Alternative Politics 2 12-10-2013 03:34 PM
World Trade Center Tower To Be Made With Glass From China And Steel From Germany oxi General Discussion 25 09-25-2011 11:04 AM
new world trade center SEND IT General Discussion 11 09-02-2011 05:01 PM
The Apocalypse, one world government and the 2012 alignment to the center of the gala oobymach Controversial News and Alternative Politics 64 08-05-2011 02:30 PM
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastr Sweeper Controversial News and Alternative Politics 4 04-04-2009 01:51 PM
One-World Trade Center kajunman1 Political News and Discussion 0 03-27-2009 06:37 PM
Freedom Tower Will Be Called One World Trade Center m4shadow General Discussion 0 03-27-2009 06:52 AM
Michiganders: Gibraltar Trade Center. Lady Falconessa General Discussion 2 11-08-2008 03:58 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-17-2017, 10:02 AM
RFI-EMI-GUY RFI-EMI-GUY is online now
Prepared
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 380
Thanks: 329
Thanked 334 Times in 197 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by leadcounsel View Post
Come on! It's literally impossible for structural load bearing steel (holding thousands of tons) to be weakened by intense 1800 degree fire for an hour, or many hours! What ar you thinking!!!??? Once you install I-beams they can never be damaged or weakened by anything other than nano-thermite!
Or pixie dust!

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RFI-EMI-GUY For This Useful Post:
Old 02-17-2017, 01:22 PM
iyaayas's Avatar
iyaayas iyaayas is offline
Just some guy
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: the midwest
Age: 41
Posts: 6,741
Thanks: 7,953
Thanked 11,804 Times in 4,143 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RFI-EMI-GUY View Post
None of them are the height of WTC 1 or 2 nor were they hit by a 767 full of aviation fuel.
Wtc 7 wasn't hit by an aircraft.
Old 02-17-2017, 01:35 PM
leadcounsel leadcounsel is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 4,095
Thanks: 7,480
Thanked 10,438 Times in 2,918 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iyaayas View Post
Wtc 7 wasn't hit by an aircraft.
Your arguments are intellectually dishonest and so easy to refute it's childs play.

You either don't know the facts, or you are purposefully ignoring them. I was once on the fence about WTC 7 a few months ago when I cared to wage into this debate. There's nothing magical about a plane hitting a building. Other significant damage can also bring down a building - such as thousands of tons of falling steel sheering and gutting a structure. And fire! Yup. Plain old hot fire.

Its entirely clear to me that WTC 7 fell as a direct, proximate, and natural cause from the MASSIVE structural damage from direct hits of falling WTC Tower(s). The building was burned out of control on numerous floors. ~ 1800 fire > steel. Has been since the dawn of steel.

You can see the damage on videos and pictures. The wind was blowing sideways concealing much of it with smoke, but the damage is clearly there.

So you either are concealing the truth or purposefully ignoring it.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to leadcounsel For This Useful Post:
 
Old 02-17-2017, 02:42 PM
iyaayas's Avatar
iyaayas iyaayas is offline
Just some guy
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: the midwest
Age: 41
Posts: 6,741
Thanks: 7,953
Thanked 11,804 Times in 4,143 Posts
Default

Yeah it's impossible for the vast majority of a building that isn't damaged to do what it's built to do and resist damage to the upper portion.

They just fall down. Yes yes of course. Thank you peanut gallery for clearing that up.

It's a wonder any of them remain upright at all.
Old 02-17-2017, 02:46 PM
iyaayas's Avatar
iyaayas iyaayas is offline
Just some guy
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: the midwest
Age: 41
Posts: 6,741
Thanks: 7,953
Thanked 11,804 Times in 4,143 Posts
Default

Btw, according to nist the damage wtc 7 received from falling debris was negligible. In fact, it's not even mentioned as a contributing factor. Just normal office fires.

Riiiiight.

Pixie dust my ass. You guys must believe in pixies, probably unicorns too if you believe that nonsense.
Old 02-17-2017, 03:38 PM
leadcounsel leadcounsel is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 4,095
Thanks: 7,480
Thanked 10,438 Times in 2,918 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iyaayas View Post
Btw, according to nist the damage wtc 7 received from falling debris was negligible. In fact, it's not even mentioned as a contributing factor. Just normal office fires.

Riiiiight.

Pixie dust my ass. You guys must believe in pixies, probably unicorns too if you believe that nonsense.
Wrong. Fire was the primary, but structural damage was a secondary factor. See #4, 15, 21, 22 etc. below.

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Quote:
2. When did WTC 7 collapse?
On Sept. 11, 2001, WTC 7 endured fires for almost seven hours, from the time of the collapse of the north WTC tower (WTC 1) at 10:28:22 a.m. until 5:20:52 p.m., when WTC 7 collapsed.


4. What caused the fires in WTC 7?
Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors—7 through 9 and 11 through 13—burned out of control. These lower-floor fires—which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed—were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.
5. How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.


Diagram 1—Typical WTC 7 floor showing locations of columns (numbered). The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 79 and 44, and cascading floor failures. (Credit: NIST)
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, and 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.
The probable collapse sequence is described in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 2.4 and NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Chapter 13.


7. How did the collapse of WTC 7 differ from the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?
WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. WTC 7 was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an aircraft. The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event—the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections....
The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from the fires in the WTC towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously as they were in the WTC towers. Instead, separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.

8. Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system (see the answer to Question 9).
Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

9. What are the major differences between "typical" major high-rise building fires that have occurred in the United States and the fire in the WTC 7 building on Sept. 11, 2001?
There are more similarities than differences between the uncontrolled fires that burned in WTC 7 and those that occurred in the following buildings: First Interstate Bank Building (1988), One Meridian Plaza Building (1991), One New York Plaza (1970), and WTC 51 (2001).
NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 8.5, provides details about these building fires.
The following factors describe the fire events that occurred in both WTC 7 and the referenced buildings:
The fuel for the fires was ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels.
There was no use of accelerants.
The spread of fire from combustible to combustible was governed by ordinary fire physics.
Fire-induced window breakage provided ventilation for continued fire spread and growth.
There were simultaneous fires on multiple floors.
The fires on each floor occupied a substantial portion of the floor.
The fires on each floor had passed the point of flashover and the structure was subjected to typical post-flashover temperatures.
The sprinklers were inoperative or ineffective; and 9) the fires burned for sufficient time to cause significant distortion and/or failure to the building structure.
There were some differences between the fires in WTC 7 and those in the referenced buildings, but these differences were secondary to the fire factors that led to the collapse of WTC 7:
Fires in high-rise buildings typically have a single point of origin on a single floor, whereas the fires in WTC 7 likely had a single point of origin on multiple (10) floors.
Fires in other high-rise buildings were due to isolated events, whereas the fires in WTC 7 followed the collapse of WTC 1.
Water was available to fight fires in the other high rise buildings, but the water supply to fight fires in WTC 7 was impaired.
While the fires in the other buildings were actively fought by firefighters to the extent possible, in WTC 7, no efforts were made to fight the fires because of the lack of a water supply.
The differences in the fires were not meaningful for the following reasons. By the time WTC 7 collapsed, the fires in WTC 7 had advanced well beyond the likely points of origin on multiple floors (i.e., south and west faces), and points of fire origin had no bearing on the fire conditions when the building collapsed (i.e., in the northeast quadrant). Additionally, in each of the other referenced buildings, the fires burned out several floors, even with available water and firefighting activities (except for WTC 5). Thus, whether the fire fighters fought the WTC 7 fires or not is not a meaningful point of dissimilarity from the other cited fires.

10. Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What is NIST's answer to those assertions?
WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

11. In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can NIST ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi...aftreports.cfm), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky....

13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

14. Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that it was highly unlikely that it could have been used to sever columns in WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.
Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails. Thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase the compound's thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature.
To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb. of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column; presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.
It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11, 2001, or during that day.


Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite or thermate was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

15. What about claims that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found metallic residues that are evidence of thermite in dust and air samples, respectively, taken from the WTC area after Sept. 11, 2001?

There has not been any conclusive evidence presented to indicate that highly reactive pyrotechnic material was present in the debris of WTC 7. The studies that have been conducted to document trace metals, organic compounds, and other materials in the dust and air from the vicinity of the WTC disaster have all suggested common sources for these items. For example, in a published report from the USGS on an analysis of WTC dust, the authors state that "... the trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment."
...

17. An emergency responder caught in WTC 7 between the 6th and 8th floors said he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?
The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building.
...

21. Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?
The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire-resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.


22. Would WTC 7 have collapsed even if there had been no structural damage induced by the collapse of WTC 1?
Yes. Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.


24. How hot did WTC 7's steel columns and floor beams get?
Due to the effectiveness of the spray-applied fire-resistive material (SFRM) or fireproofing, the highest steel column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 degrees Celsius (570 degrees Fahrenheit), and only on the east side of the building did the steel floor beams exceed 600 degrees Celsius (1,100 degrees Fahrenheit). However, fire-induced buckling of floor beams and damage to connections—which caused buckling of a critical column initiating collapse—occurred at temperatures below approximately 400 degrees Celsius (where thermal expansion dominates. Above 600 degrees Celsius (1,100 degrees Fahrenheit), there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness. In the WTC 7 collapse, the loss of steel strength or stiffness was not as important as the thermal expansion of steel structures caused by heat.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to leadcounsel For This Useful Post:
Old 02-18-2017, 05:15 AM
Justme11's Avatar
Justme11 Justme11 is offline
French Prometheus unbound
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 17,397
Thanks: 17,660
Thanked 38,353 Times in 12,596 Posts
Default

Lead Council apparantly knows the sound levels of an explosion caused by nanothermite. Amazing !

A weapon that is tunable as to reaction speed and hence noise signature.
The very reason this weapon was used!

"I fart in your general direction.

The Following User Says Thank You to Justme11 For This Useful Post:
Old 02-18-2017, 07:11 AM
Corpus Corpus is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 626
Thanks: 512
Thanked 753 Times in 405 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme11 View Post
One of the videos I showed earlier was a test made on some of the 9-11 size steel beams (without fire insulation). They were put into a roaring wood and diesel fuel fire for 24 hours. When they pulled them out of the fire, they looked brand new other than the soot and ash.


Without even watching the video I can tell you that it is meaningless unless there is a 3million pound weight attached to the beam. 3 million pounds is roughly the weight of 1 (ONE) floor at WTC1&2. I've read somewhere that was the weight, but have not verified so it may be off a bit but I'm guessing they were more than zero which is probably the amount of weight added to your beam "experiment" video.
It's not really a difficult concept to grasp: steel softens and weakens when heated beyond a certain point. Beams that can hold up 3million pounds (multiplied by however many floors are above impact zone) will not be able to carry that same load when heated. If you will not cede that point at least then you are either far less intelligent than you sound or you're just trolling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Corpus For This Useful Post:
Old 02-18-2017, 07:21 AM
Corpus Corpus is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 626
Thanks: 512
Thanked 753 Times in 405 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iyaayas View Post
Is that so?

There's a case history of modern high rises burning over 20 hours until all combustible material is exhausted. And the frames still stood. You are incorrect.

See post 2901at the top of the page.


Yes, it is so. My post was about building codes. Can you build something that would last longer? Of course. I'm sure there are heavily reinforced sites (military, nuclear) etc. that are built to far surpass minimum codes. Commercial bldgs. are not built that way because it costs too much and takes away rentable space.
My post was in response to someone claiming buildings can and will stand forever (indefinitely) while burning which is completely wrong. Fire codes vary from state to state but I can tell you NOT ANY OF THEM stipulate a building must withstand fire forever without collapsing.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Old 02-18-2017, 07:53 AM
Corpus Corpus is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 626
Thanks: 512
Thanked 753 Times in 405 Posts
Default World Trade Center - 15 years - Who did it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme11 View Post
I already told you the reason a couple pages ago. Do you have a reading comprehension malfunction? Are you going to ask this same question yet again 2 pages from now?
If you've read every single post in this thread then perhaps it is your reading comprehension that is in question: I stated just a few posts prior that for sanity's sake I force myself not to read all of the loopy theories put forth.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme11 View Post
A mad Middle Eastern bomber would not have the access to the towers necessary to plant 50 tons of explosives, and have the extreme level of knowledge needed to coordinate the timing of the emplaced charges. Helping them to do this would reveal the government's participation in the attack.

You want us to believe an elevator maintenance crew planted the demo charges or thermite in all three bldgs over a period of a few weeks without anyone noticing. An absolutely impossible scenario btw but why not after the fact just leak docs "proving" 19 (or 100 ) terrorists posed as workers to do it? According to your scenario the NWO/PTB/GUBMINT did just that with the hijackers. And if the motivation is taking us to war it need not be a cave dwelling mad bomber, why not make it look like the Iraqi government did it.
Or, as I wrote in the post you responded to, just say it was a blind sheik type bomb ala '93? They could say that this time they used more sophisticated explosives or maybe even invent a fictional "Super mega nano-bot thermo pixie dust" combo?
If the g-men did it they could even make sure that the normal residue from such an event was tested by someone who insists it was said pixie dust.
Instead, you believe, they added untold levels of complexity to make us think it was planes. Then despite the sheer size and complexity you also believe that, after 15 years, not a single misstep or leak or death bed confession has exposed them.
Pardon me for not considering that plausible.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Following User Says Thank You to Corpus For This Useful Post:
Old 02-18-2017, 08:38 AM
Justme11's Avatar
Justme11 Justme11 is offline
French Prometheus unbound
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 17,397
Thanks: 17,660
Thanked 38,353 Times in 12,596 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corpus View Post
If you've read every single post in this thread then perhaps it is you're reading comprehension that is in question: I stated just a few posts prior that for sanity's sake I force myself not to read all of the loopy theories put forth.





You want us to believe an elevator maintenance crew planted the demo charges or thermite in all three bldgs over a period of a few weeks without anyone noticing. An absolutely impossible scenario btw but why not after the fact just leak docs "proving" 19 (or 100 ) terrorists posed as workers to do it? According to your scenario the NWO/PTB/GUBMINT did just that with the hijackers. And if the motivation is taking us to war it need not be a cave dwelling mad bomber, why not make it look like the Iraqi government did it.
Or, as I wrote in the post you responded to, just say it was a blind sheik type bomb ala '93? They could say that this time they used more sophisticated explosives or maybe even invent a fictional "Super mega nano-bot thermo pixie dust" combo?
If the g-men did it they could even make sure that the normal residue from such an event was tested by someone who insists it was said pixie dust.
Instead, you believe, they added untold levels of complexity to make us think it was planes. Then given the sheer size and complexity you also believe that, after 15 years, not a single misstep or leak or death bed confession has exposed them.
Pardon me for not considering that plausible.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why are you even on this thread then? If you don't view the materials or even read my posts, then I will afford you the same level of disrespect.

Nowhere did I say the people that planted the thermite worked for the elevator repair company, Acme. I said that the elevator repair work gave someone the opportunity to enter the building during the off hours and rig the explosives. Acme elevator was there nightly for months, in the night shifts leading up to 9-11. Also, unmaked vans (approx 3), also were seen visiting the WTC nightly for more than a month leading up to 9-11.

But why am I even typing this? You won't read it. Back on ignore you go. Go troll someone else.
The Following User Says Thank You to Justme11 For This Useful Post:
Old 02-18-2017, 01:12 PM
Corpus Corpus is offline
Hiker
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 626
Thanks: 512
Thanked 753 Times in 405 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme11 View Post
Why are you even on this thread then? If you don't view the materials or even read my posts, then I will afford you the same level of disrespect.
When you intimated I was an idiot who couldn't understand your post I only meant to point out that I may not have read every single post because sometimes I take a day or week away from this particular thread/topic. I don't feel the need go back and read every single post from those days off because most of them contain the same inaccurate and misleading and often far out theories. Theories which have been so thoroughly debunked that they rarely deserve the dignity of a response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme11 View Post
Nowhere did I say the people that planted the thermite worked for the elevator repair company, Acme. I said that the elevator repair work gave someone the opportunity to enter the building during the off hours and rig the explosives. Acme elevator was there nightly for months, in the night shifts leading up to 9-11. Also, unmaked vans (approx 3), also were seen visiting the WTC nightly for more than a month leading up to 9-11.

But why am I even typing this? You won't read it. Back on ignore you go. Go troll someone else.

Obviously I don't believe any of this stuff happened but what I'm saying is that if the M.I.B. used elevator work as cover to place 50 tons of thermite, (or whatever you think they used to drop the bldgs. ), they could have just blown them and then pointed to the Iraqi gov. Or AQ and that would have been more than enough to justify going to war. I'm trying to point out that, instead of doing that, you believe they opted to add unbelievably complex layers to this already impossible "conspiracy".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Following User Says Thank You to Corpus For This Useful Post:
Old 02-18-2017, 02:15 PM
RKW's Avatar
RKW RKW is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: A1 on the jukebox
Posts: 2,764
Thanks: 4,134
Thanked 4,659 Times in 1,606 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme11 View Post
Why are you even on this thread then? If you don't view the materials or even read my posts, then I will afford you the same level of disrespect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme11 View Post
if you think I am going to search through thousands of posts every time one of you gets a wild hair, you are incorrect.

Yeah ... whatever.
The Following User Says Thank You to RKW For This Useful Post:
Old 02-18-2017, 02:34 PM
Justme11's Avatar
Justme11 Justme11 is offline
French Prometheus unbound
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 17,397
Thanks: 17,660
Thanked 38,353 Times in 12,596 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKW View Post
Yeah ... whatever.
Your context is out of alignment. I said that after someone asked for proof ( a video) of something as I recall, that I had already provided multiple times.

it gets annoying when I dig up videos and present them several times, and rather than watching the video, the other person stands there and keeps re-demanding the same proof.
The Following User Says Thank You to Justme11 For This Useful Post:
Old 02-18-2017, 02:50 PM
iyaayas's Avatar
iyaayas iyaayas is offline
Just some guy
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: the midwest
Age: 41
Posts: 6,741
Thanks: 7,953
Thanked 11,804 Times in 4,143 Posts
Default

That's become a trend here.
The Following User Says Thank You to iyaayas For This Useful Post:
Old 02-18-2017, 02:57 PM
leadcounsel leadcounsel is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 4,095
Thanks: 7,480
Thanked 10,438 Times in 2,918 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corpus View Post
Without even watching the video I can tell you that it is meaningless unless there is a 3million pound weight attached to the beam. 3 million pounds is roughly the weight of 1 (ONE) floor at WTC1&2. I've read somewhere that was the weight, but have not verified so it may be off a bit but I'm guessing they were more than zero which is probably the amount of weight added to your beam "experiment" video.
It's not really a difficult concept to grasp: steel softens and weakens when heated beyond a certain point. Beams that can hold up 3million pounds (multiplied by however many floors are above impact zone) will not be able to carry that same load when heated. If you will not cede that point at least then you are either far less intelligent than you sound or you're just trolling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Plenty of evidence on videos of steel Ibeams and structural steel being heated with fires and weakened enough to bend pretty easily and quickly. No doubt that even minor weakening of those load bearing beams would cause a collapse. Reduce their structural strength by just a few percent and it could make a huge difference.
The Following User Says Thank You to leadcounsel For This Useful Post:
Old 02-18-2017, 03:09 PM
leadcounsel leadcounsel is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 4,095
Thanks: 7,480
Thanked 10,438 Times in 2,918 Posts
Default

It's been beat to death, but the notion that janitors and MIB for months preceding the attack snuck in and wired the combined 270 stories of buildings with explosives is not even plausible. I forget the estimate on the amount of explosives but it's several tons or hundreds of tons - a LOT. Demo work crews doing it out in the open with lots of manpower require 6 months to do it for one building. So how long would a clandestine crew or several crews require to do it at night, setting up, installing, and putting all their gear away leaving no trace, every night, for a small window of time? For 3 buildings. Avoiding security, detection, suspicion, etc. Years probably.

And why? Far simpler to simply false flag a different approach. Saddam missiles. Done. Very simple and linear connection to Iraq. Create a false nexus to Saddam and AQ, detonate massive bombs or missiles or whatever.

What we saw on 9/11/01 would have been the most hair brained illogical insider attack one could imagine, in broad daylight, with plenty of recordings to study. Far too involved and requiring too many moving parts, complexities, and people for it to have been a success from an insiders standpoint.

I just makes zero sense.
The Following User Says Thank You to leadcounsel For This Useful Post:
Old 02-18-2017, 03:17 PM
Justme11's Avatar
Justme11 Justme11 is offline
French Prometheus unbound
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 17,397
Thanks: 17,660
Thanked 38,353 Times in 12,596 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leadcounsel View Post
It's been beat to death, but the notion that janitors and MIB for months preceding the attack snuck in and wired the combined 270 stories of buildings with explosives is not even plausible. I forget the estimate on the amount of explosives but it's several tons or hundreds of tons - a LOT. Demo work crews doing it out in the open with lots of manpower require 6 months to do it for one building. So how long would a clandestine crew or several crews require to do it at night, setting up, installing, and putting all their gear away leaving no trace, every night, for a small window of time? For 3 buildings. Avoiding security, detection, suspicion, etc. Years probably.

And why? Far simpler to simply false flag a different approach. Saddam missiles. Done. Very simple and linear connection to Iraq. Create a false nexus to Saddam and AQ, detonate massive bombs or missiles or whatever.

What we saw on 9/11/01 would have been the most hair brained illogical insider attack one could imagine, in broad daylight, with plenty of recordings to study. Far too involved and requiring too many moving parts, complexities, and people for it to have been a success from an insiders standpoint.

I just makes zero sense.
I guess you missed the part where George Bush's brother owned the security company. Avoiding security or recordings would not have been a concern.

Best estimate I have seen is that 50 tons of nanothermite were used.
The Professor doctor Harrit put his estimate as "up to 100 tons".

If 1 pallet of thermite was 1 ton, that would fit in 1 van and be installed in 1 night.
There were 3 vans a there were at least 2 months of elevator repair work being done.

I am not a demolition expert, so I have no idea if the charges need to be placed on every floor. I would have guess every 4 to 6 floors.

There are many witnesses of explosions at the lobby level. A guy was set on fire by one of them. And 1 guy said the explosion in the basement happened BEFORE the planes hit. Another witness was in WTC 7 and said there were several huge explosions inside there before the tower came down.
The Following User Says Thank You to Justme11 For This Useful Post:
Old 02-18-2017, 03:25 PM
Justme11's Avatar
Justme11 Justme11 is offline
French Prometheus unbound
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 17,397
Thanks: 17,660
Thanked 38,353 Times in 12,596 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leadcounsel View Post
Plenty of evidence on videos of steel Ibeams and structural steel being heated with fires and weakened enough to bend pretty easily and quickly. No doubt that even minor weakening of those load bearing beams would cause a collapse. Reduce their structural strength by just a few percent and it could make a huge difference.
The engineers said the steel structure was over designed by 300% in the core and 500% in the perimeter.

The 1993 bombing blew out a bunch of central core beams and the tower still stood.

Weakening the beams a little would not collapse the structure. And hthe fires were not that hot. Comments were that the fires were almost out. And the beam are fire insulated. a 1 hour fire would not do much to harm those beams.

People with unprotected fleshy bodies walked right through the fire floors as they escaped and remarked that the fires were not that hot. "flames slowly licking the walls, starved for O2".

But you already have your mind made up, so why are you here wasting your time? Shouldn't an Atty be in court changing the world or on a yacht shagging babes?
The Following User Says Thank You to Justme11 For This Useful Post:
Old 02-18-2017, 04:07 PM
wilderness medic's Avatar
wilderness medic wilderness medic is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: California
Posts: 195
Thanks: 119
Thanked 336 Times in 106 Posts
Default

Wh does everyone talk about it being the government that did it and covering it up rather than the government covering up something like it wasn't built to the standards they said it was? It could have been built out of, you know, cheese wiz or pixie dust or something. Yeah that sounds right. The steel wasn't steel at all. It was cheese wiz.
Reply

Bookmarks



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net