Slim Posted June 9, 2007 Share Posted June 9, 2007 Well i stumbled across this vid clip and sort of watched how they do controlled explosion i.e dropping a building on its foot print and i have to say the twin towers and this clip are sort of similar including the puffs of dust coming out of the windows as it drops. Collapsing buildings looking the same, what a shocker. They both have dust too! I'm fucking convinced! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted June 18, 2007 Share Posted June 18, 2007 Found thse videos made in relation to the media coverage of Sept 11 attacks.....I've linked the first section but there are 5 in total on the site. Clicky Something to bring the thread back to life....well sort of! Not sure what I make of them to be honest...17 seconds doesnt seem all that long to pull off the biggest cover up in world history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smelly Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 The only problem i have had with this whole story is the way the whole area was not treated as a crime scene they had the diggers in within days. And the steel was shipped of to china asap. If this was treated as a proper crime the whole area should have been sealed of for months ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Possibly the choice was seal off and treat as crime scene with limited and restricted access or get in there and try and find survivors. Understandably the latter took preference especially as there is and was loads of evidence shown TV of what caused the "crime"! It was not as if people were scratching here heads going "oh I wonder what caused all this then?" Incidentally much of it remained sealed off for a considerable period. Mainly only rescue workers and law enforcement were allowed access. Yes clear up guys were in but initially they were part of the rescue effort The only problem i have had with this whole story is the way the whole area was not treated as a crime scene they had the diggers in within days. And the steel was shipped of to china asap. If this was treated as a proper crime the whole area should have been sealed of for months ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted June 20, 2007 Share Posted June 20, 2007 The only problem i have had with this whole story is the way the whole area was not treated as a crime scene they had the diggers in within days. And the steel was shipped of to china asap. If this was treated as a proper crime the whole area should have been sealed of for months ? As ever with this sort of thing its mainly a myth. Steel work was quaranteened and tested. This is a summary article from NIST. The Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY), later supplemented by NIST personnel, spent countless hours selecting steel in the New Jersey recycling yards for later forensic analysis. After shipment to NIST, the Metallurgy Division cataloged the 236 recovered steel components. Since many pieces were stamped and painted with unique serial numbers correlated with the building plans, it was often possible to identify the exact original location in the building. Also see this rather geeky NIST video showing the testing done on pieces from right where the planes hit - the graphic showing where the beams were taken from shows the detail of the investigation. They looked for and found specific beams. More photos here. Also check out Here for more info on the material collected and tested and HERE for how they commissioned equipment specifically to investigate the materials at high temperatures. The trouble is the internet-myths get passed on and on. The large amount of work to investigate why the Towers etc collapsed is ignored. You can believe what ever you like, but I've spent a reasonable proportion of my life relying on stress curves, temperature profiles and how the crystalline nature of metals changes with temperature. I look forward - not - to the claims this work undertaken by large numbers of engineers is all fabricated cos they were in on the conspiracy too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 china what a load of shit. explain what happened here then. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/c...re/windsor.html and please please please not just "that a plane didn't hit this building", as the fire still reached the same temperature as the towers. plus a plane never hit WTC 7 anyway. then explain to me how it took just under 3 hours for 5 floors to collapse, yet it took WTC 7 seven seconds to completely collapse the whole building into it's own footprint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Stevie, as has been explained to you many times, and often in very short words so you'll understand, you simply cannot compare two different fires in two different buildings and expect an identical result. Theres lots of reasons why these buildings may have behaved differently, not least because one was a fire and the other was a building hit by a massive jet full of fuel. But at the most basic level, this: Is nothing like this: The size of the building, the construction of the building, the result of the impact, the result of the jet fuel, the weight of the floors above (look how low the fires are compared to the fires in your example, theres very little weight above the fires. Note which one dropped first, the one with the most weight above. Why dont you stop this bullshit of asking questions and answer Dr Daves question? Until then, you've got no credability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 and WTC 7........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 As slim says until you actually answer ome questions yourself you have no credibility. I prefer the quote which goes along the lines that it is hard to argue with an idiot. I do not therefore know why I waste five minutes of time with you but could the answer possibly be a) WTC7 had a whole chunk of it knocked out when the towers collapsed, B) the constructions of the building were different, to quote the link you put up" In fact, comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns" c) only if the buildings, conditions and damage were indenticle in controlled conditions would you expect to see identicle results. When you actuallyunderstand a) this was a unique situation B) come up with a plausable hypothesis how any theories could have been put in place and not noticed by anybody then I might have time to both reading your crap in future. As yet despite being asked many times how they could have possibly rigged to be demolished and not noticed at the time by anybody al we get from you is deafening silence. I resume this is because you have not got a clue and I mean that in both ways it can be read and WTC 7........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovenotfear Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 As slim says until you actually answer ome questions yourself you have no credibility. I prefer the quote which goes along the lines that it is hard to argue with an idiot. I do not therefore know why I waste five minutes of time with you but could the answer possibly be a) WTC7 had a whole chunk of it knocked out when the towers collapsed, B) the constructions of the building were different, to quote the link you put up" In fact, comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns" c) only if the buildings, conditions and damage were indenticle in controlled conditions would you expect to see identicle results. When you actuallyunderstand a) this was a unique situation B) come up with a plausable hypothesis how any theories could have been put in place and not noticed by anybody then I might have time to both reading your crap in future. As yet despite being asked many times how they could have possibly rigged to be demolished and not noticed at the time by anybody al we get from you is deafening silence. I resume this is because you have not got a clue and I mean that in both ways it can be read and WTC 7........ I have not commented on this for a while, but will now! LL! You say that "they could have possibly rigged to be demolished and not noticed at the time"? I have read several articles about people inside the towers who said that "floors were closed for weeks before on certain levels" There seemed to be lots of construction work taking place! Also you must read all the work done by Dr Steven E Jones about Thermite... or Thermate, he has done some painstaking work on the subject and come up with some very disturbing results!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Uhm y I have and his work is not so painstaking that it has been acceopted by the scientific community, stood up to peer review etc etc. Even conspiracy theorists discredit much of it! All I and many ask is one irrefutable fact, one bit of cast iron evidence, a bit of peer review reseach that back ups any part of a consparac. after all it is such a big conspiracy with thousands involved that after five years somebody must have broken the ranks now to spill the beans. No? For F Sake even proof regarding Nessie is easier to come by than any proof with regard to a conspiracy over the same period. Also you must read all the work done by Dr Steven E Jones about Thermite... or Thermate, he has done some painstaking work on the subject and comeup with some very disturbing results!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 As slim says until you actually answer ome questions yourself you have no credibility. I prefer the quote which goes along the lines that it is hard to argue with an idiot. I do not therefore know why I waste five minutes of time with you but could the answer possibly be a) WTC7 had a whole chunk of it knocked out when the towers collapsed, and WTC 7........ as i have pointed out before, it really does not matter that a chunk was knocked out of the building, the building was built with a reinforced core running vertically through the centre of the building. for a building to collpase in the way it did, all 4 load bearing members must be took out at exactly the same time. for this to happen to WTC 7 in the way it is told, the temperature must have been spread evenly across the base of WTC 7, and then to collapse the 4 members at exactly the same time. i find this very hard to believe as surely the inferno in WTC 7 was not great enough to collapse steel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 All I and many ask is one irrefutable fact, one bit of cast iron evidence, a bit of peer review reseach that back ups any part of a consparac. after all it is such a big conspiracy with thousands involved that after five years somebody must have broken the ranks now to spill the beans. No? I asked for that 30 pages back. Still waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 I know, but I presume they are slow readers so thought worth repaeting as others have done. Not that they will ever answer. All I and many ask is one irrefutable fact, one bit of cast iron evidence, a bit of peer review reseach that back ups any part of a consparac. after all it is such a big conspiracy with thousands involved that after five years somebody must have broken the ranks now to spill the beans. No? I asked for that 30 pages back. Still waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 and WTC 7........ Dr Dave's covered that pretty well. What you think happened to WTC 7? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.