What a controlled demolition really looks like.

Okay, wandering off the well-marked path here a little...

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
I'm still waiting to hear how so much explosive was planted throughout the buildings without anyone noticing. Explosive that had to be linked in sequence, carefully, throughout the entire building and hidden so that no dumb sparky would find it by accident.

Well you're not going to hear that from me, man. Not being able to tell you this does not mean there wasn't a demo. It just means there's no way for us to tell how they were set up. Just consider for a moment the *impossible* idea that these buildings were demolished. We still wouldn't be able to tell you how it happened. How could you expect us to? It's not an important issue, and it's a disinfo tactic to demand complete answers before considering any of what we're saying.

No. If you're saying it's possible, you have to tell me how. How did the explosives (or thermite) get there? It wasn't put there by the builders...Every part of the theory must be supportable, even with another theory...So start theorising.

The military does them to achieve military goals.

And with a general histlory of utter failure one wonders why they are still in use.

The Reichstag Fire worked for the Nazis, and they also staged a Polish attack to justify invading Poland. The Gulf of Tonkin got us into Vietnam despite it being a bunch of bullcrap by the virtue of propoganda. Blaming the Maine on Spain got us into war just fine the same way. I could go out into more controversial territory with the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor (foreknowledge) but those are enough of a precedent that deceptions do work at getting us into war. Can you think of any deceptions that have failed to get us into war? Then you have the Operation Northwoods documents..

Those aren't military operations, they are political. The Reichstag fire was not set by the Wehrmacht, but by the Nazis. Blaming the Maine on Spain was Charles Foster Ka...I mean, William Randolph Hearst and that was business (Tomorrow Never Dies, anybody?), but despite a clear lack of documented evidence Hearst was able to manufacture proof, Cheney tried the same thing and was forced later to say "I've never suggested there was a link between Saddam and 911". The Gulf of Tonkin had very rapid follow-up telegrams saying things like "situation unclear", but which may not have been shown to the President, or perhaps the original documents were "sexed up"...WTC didn't get you into Iraq, it got us into Afghanistan, which everyone supported. Look at what else had to be done to get troops into Iraq, Powell's visit to the UN, Condi's "smoking gun, nuclear cloud", Blair's "can deploy in 45 minutes", mobile chemical factories...

We ensure the rightfully angry people remain trapped in their third-world sinkholes while we rape them of natural resources.

Beautiful, man.

Yeah, well, I've lived in one. It just didn't have much in the way of resources.

Originally posted by Damocles
but, can we at least agree that its POSSIBLE that the sounds in question come from the sounds of a lot of weight hitting each floor as it collapses?

Not like that, if you mean those rectangular shapes. The resistance provided by thousands of tons of steel and concrete against the falling floors would have necessitated that energy be exerted (lost) in the system, to continue moving downward.

Energy would have been exerted by the top floors, lost, and the collapse speed would have slowed, especially when mass was being lost rapidly (and mass is a critical figure), and the columns were becoming thicker and thicker on the progression downwards.

When floor A destroys floor B in the exact same amount of time that floor Y destroys floor Z so much later in the sequence, there is additional energy in the system than just gravity pulling something downwards. If it were just gravity, the collapses would have started with a set amount of energy and decreased from there. Not remained constant. It would be physically impossible for the collapse rate to remain the exact same in those circumstances without explosives: 13 floors crushing 97, same time lapse between each set of floors. There is absolutely no precedent for anything like that, ever, with things simply falling down via gravity alone.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
No. If you're saying it's possible, you have to tell me how. How did the explosives (or thermite) get there?

How would I know? Was I there? Do you want me to just make stuff up, pull it out of my ass for you?

What you're demanding of me is a logical fallacy anyway (demanding complete answers for any of it to be true = a logical fallacy):

Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection):

if your opponent successfully addresses some point, then say he must also address some further point. If you can make these points more and more difficult (or diverse) then eventually your opponent must fail. If nothing else, you will eventually find a subject that your opponent isn't up on.

And similarly a disinformation tactic:

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best items qualifying for rule 10.

Example: "Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?"

Again, because you are making a clumsy assumption in believing that I have to give reasonable explanations of every aspect of the WTC collapses for any of what I say to hold water, you don't make sense. That just doesn't stand to reason, and it's well-accepted that it doesn't. I don't have to give you all the answers for what I'm proposing to check out from the views I'm presenting it from.

Those aren't military operations, they are political.

Well maybe I meant a political operation then, even if military tech was/might've been involved. And I don't think there would've been any Iraq war without 9/11 and Afghanistan first.

[edit on 15-5-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Damocles
ok first we have to be able to agree that the towers were built essentially as stacked floors inside a steel/concrete tube.

No concrete in the tube.

so, if the top 13 floors drop, its not really 13 crushing 97, it would be 13 crushing one followed by 14 crushing 96 and so on. if the guts of the building were dropping from inside, and the floors were holding the outter structure together, then you have the center dropping out and the outter walls falling outwards.

The key to remember is that once the collapse began, the floors were immaterial. The floor slabs were attached via the trusses to the outer walls, the buckling if the outer walls would have pulled the the trusses out of their seats. The truss seats were not designed to withstand that type of movement. Either the angle clip would have torn, or the two 5/8 bolts per truss would have broken.

(BTW, the engineer that inspected the building fireproofing before the collapse stated that some of the trusses were not even seated properly!!!)

The collapse should be looked at more as a buckling wave through the exterior and interior columns as opposed to individual floors slamming on top of each other.

if you also compare the construction of the individual floors to that of a steel truss supported roof of an industrial building (believe stateofgrace made this comparison earlier in the thread, or i saw it in another 9-11 thread) and there are cases of the roofs of these industrial buildings failing from fire, THEN the idea that a couple floors failed and dropped onto the "roof" of the floor below, the idea of a progressive collapse due to fire isnt quite as far fetched as one may think.

It wouldn't have taken much fire to cause the trusses to fail if the fireproofing was missing or damaged.

The issue is not the floor falling on the one below, but the loss of the lateral support to the columns from the missing floor.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
...at the wtc the plane made it through the massive steel exterior......but it would have naturally been shredded in the process.

You realize that the thickness of the side plates of the exterior columns was around¼ inch in the impact zone, don’t you?

Side plates? 1/4 inch? There is a lot more steel than a quarter inch even in the pic you posted as is obvious when compared to landing gear from a 767! There is a massive steel exterior grid that encompasses the complete structure like netting. While yes the core columns tapered in size the higher up you go the exterior did not.

HR

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
So how could a shredded aircraft then proceed to slice through a concrete reinforced steel core that is thicker and stronger than the wall at the pentagon??

WTF are you talking about? Where are you getting your Pentagon comparison from?

”concrete reinforced steel ? Where did you come up with that one?

Please provide backup to support your contention that the core was built with concrete reinforced steel.

I already showed you this in another thread so I guess you missed it.

The Core Structure Of The World Trade Center Towers Was A Steel Reinforced, Cast Concrete, Tubular Core.

HR

Jack Tripper
Here are the dimensions for ONE core column.....

Uh, dude, you do realize that you are posting pictures of the bases of the columns, you know the part that sits on top of the foundations. It even says so in the image file name: “col_base.jpg,” and “corebase1.jpg.” I hope you are not trying to suggest that the columns were that thick the entire height of the building, are you?

Nope. But I am suggesting that at the top the core columns were still larger than the quite large exterior steel columns that did stay the same thickness the entire height of the building.

HR

Jack Tripper
Here is a close up of the massive core as it's being built...

Judging by the buildings in the background, they were barely off the ground in that photo. How about a picture of the core columns from the impact floors?

Judging by the LACK of buildings in the background of this pic that you conveniently ignored.....the MASSIVE nubs sticking up in the center are clearly part of the core high up on the structure. Pretty darn big wouldn't you say? There are even some more burly construction workers standing around to compare them to!

HR

Jack Tripper
This pic shows the exterior steel that it had to pass through in comparison to the massive nubs of the core columns sticking up in the center.....

(Photo edited out - HR)
And for scale so you realize just how big the exterior steel columns are that it had to pass through first.....take a look at the big burly construction worker in the bottom left of this photo touching one of the columns....
(Photo edited out - HR)

“big burly construction worker “

Sorry I just had to laugh at that considering your handle and avatar.

I’ve got a better photo. This is one of the exterior column trees that was knocked off of the opposite side of WTC1 from the impact. This is from the actual impact zone. No big, burly, construction workers though.

Better? Better to prove MY point perhaps

Yes that exterior panel appears to be smaller when compared to landing gear from a 767! Are you really trying to suggest that it was?

HR

Jack Tripper
Bottom line..the core could not have been damaged by an obliterated plane that barely clipped it.

Barely clipped it? Where did you come up with that?

How many of the core columns were box columns and how many were I-Beams in the impact zones for each building?

Obviously none at the south tower since we see the bulkhead of the plane exiting the building!



I don't think the nose/bulkhead hit the core at all. I think it was shifted a few feet to the right from in the diagram below left.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Damocles
ok first we have to be able to agree that the towers were built essentially as stacked floors inside a steel/concrete tube.

No concrete in the tube.

Since you're completely wrong about this fact in regards to the basic structure of the towers than there is no point even considering all the other baseless assumptions you made.

The Core Structure Of The World Trade Center Towers Was A Steel Reinforced, Cast Concrete, Tubular Core.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

Originally posted by HowardRoark

”concrete reinforced steel ? Where did you come up with that one?

Please provide backup to support your contention that the core was built with concrete reinforced steel.

I already showed you this in another thread so I guess you missed it.

The Core Structure Of The World Trade Center Towers Was A Steel Reinforced, Cast Concrete, Tubular Core.

From that link:




Your link shoots itself in the foot with that picture.

The core walls were 2" thick drywall, not concrete.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Your link shoots itself in the foot with that picture.

The core walls were 2" thick drywall, not concrete.

2" thick DRYWALL???

You obviously didn't read the link.

Above: The north tower core was oriented east west, so we are looking at the wide side. On the right tower fr then project that dddistance down to a cross section. We see, from right to left; a light space from the out side to a dark column which represents the floor space to the interior box column, then there is another narrow light space left of that. That is the space between the interior box column and the concrete core face. Going leftward we see the facing concrete shear wall, then the hallway crossing the narrow axis, then the core face again, then the space between the east core face, then interior box column, then floor space to the east side of the building.

He gives other sources referrencing the concrete core Howard.

Why don't you read it?

Originally posted by Damocles
(all sarcasm intentional, figure out where, or dont i dont care)

Actually I thought that Howard was talking about the core......regardless...he has said many times that the core was not concrete reinforced and even still denies it although I have proven him wrong.

Originally posted by Damocles
NEW THEORY!!

OK KIDS lets all gather in a circle for story time

alright, no matter if you believe that the us govt was responsible for 9-11 or not, lets all pretend for a few minutes that GW and his boys REALLY DID pull this off for personal gain. k?

ok, lets then presume that if they did do it, and that it was being planned by them from the late 90's, (this would also really seal up the election conspiracies) that they will also want to ensure that the republicans stay in office for another few terms.

so they win the election and they immediatly put their plan into action and on 9-11 BOOM! its like christmas for them. the towers fall, the american people are all pissed off and ready for blood and vengeance.

ok, 5 years later we're bogged down in iraq, which admittedly would work out well for them financially but politically is a nightmare. approval ratings are in the toilet and right now, if this was the end of GW's first term, theres no way he'd be re elected if lindon larouche was the only guy running against him. but its not, he's in his second term but for their grand plan to come off and for them to continue to prosper from the war in iraq, they need the next president to be a republican.

heres the crux of it, if the elections were this year, we'd have a democrat as the next president. anyone who disagrees wtih that statement is pretty deluded. i was a pretty stout bush supporter for a long time and ill even be the first to say, if the elections were this year, we'd have a democrat as our next president. probably the next few presidents.

so, the republicans NEED, read that MUST HAVE a MAJOR victory for bush in order for the grand plan to continue to work. (thier cashcow that is)

so, given that about the ONLY hope they have for a "major" victory is for osama to show up in US custody and for us to crush al qaeda totally and completely...where is he?

if the US govt is behind 9-11 then Osama is a patsy who could be delivered on demand to the US public.

yet, he's oddly absent.

think about that...i mean REALLY think about that.

now having said all that...if osama is mysteriously 'brought to justice' in the next 12 months...then i may just start to belive some of the 9-11 conspiracies.

Here is the problem with all of this.

It doesn't have to be limited to the "bush administration" or "the republicans" to be an inside job.

This was a rogue group of elite globalist, zionist, collectivists that control both parties.

It is likely part of the plan to make everyone so upset with republicans so they can easily install Hitlary Klinton so everyone will think that everything is fiiiiiiiiine while she goes along with the same globalist, imperialist, militaristic agenda.

Originally posted by Damocles
lol sorry little slow tonight...apologies for my last post.

i had been subquoted so i thought that was directed at me.

No problem.

I am impressed with your ability to debate fairly, intellectually, and to admit you can see the other person's point.



I certainly couldn't say anything near the same for Howard.

Howard says drywall.

These people say concrete......

Leslie Robertson, Architect Of The World Trade Center Towers
Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.source

The twin towers of the World Trade Center were essentially two tubes, with the north tower (1,368 feet) six feet taller than the south tower (1,362 feet), and each were 110 stories tall. Each tube contained a concrete core, which supported only the load of the central bank of elevators and stairwells (Snoonian and Czarnecki 23).source

Each of the towers, in other words, was held up by its reinforced concrete core and the world's strongest curtain walls. Without the usual steel skeleton, the open floors allowed unprecedented space and flexibility. Between them, the two 1,350-foot-high towers provided 7.9 million square feet of rentable floor space, roughly the equivalent of fifty city blocks.source

At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells. Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel uprights, forming the building's outer wall.
www.blythe.org... 1-Environment/Gallon_Environ.Letter:_Engineers_on_WTC_Collapse

Groundbreaking for construction of the World Trade Center took place on August 5, 1966.Tower One, standing 1368 feet high, was completed in 1970, and Tower Two, at 1362 feet high, was completed in 1972. The structural design for the World Trade Center Towers was done by Skilling, Helle, Christiansen and Robertson. It was designed as a tube building that included a perimeter moment-resisting frame consisting of steel columns spaced on 39-inch centers. The load carrying system was designed so that the steel facade would resist lateral and gravity forces and the interior concrete core would carry only gravity loads.
www.ncsea.com...

Yet even MORE accounts of concrete core here:

The WTC Towers Had Reinforced-Concrete Cores


So Howard......are you going to be a man like Damocles and concede you could be wrong or are you going to continue to insist that you know more about the make up of the core than all of these people?

I have bets on the latter.

Jack, I debunked and disposed of your hoax in this thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Damocles
so, if the top 13 floors drop, its not really 13 crushing 97, it would be 13 crushing one followed by 14 crushing 96 and so on. if the guts of the building were dropping from inside, and the floors were holding the outter structure together, then you have the center dropping out and the outter walls falling outwards.

This didn't happen on 9/11 because most of the debris fell outside of the footprints, and didn't just fall straight down. Even as the collapse was just beginning in one of the buildings (I forget which), the uppermost floors that originally drove the collapse began falling off the side in large chunks. Most of the debris either similarly fell off the sides or was just straight-up ejected outwards with some force. That's why I noted that the masses were decreasing as the collapses continued, because of the majority of the debris not falling straight down onto lower floors as that would require.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Jack, I debunked and disposed of your hoax in this thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You mean you attempted to obfuscate, ignore, and cover-up the claim in that report by structural engineers in your sad attempt to push your lies in support of your agenda.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
No. If you're saying it's possible, you have to tell me how. How did the explosives (or thermite) get there?

How would I know? Was I there? Do you want me to just make stuff up, pull it out of my ass for you?

What you're demanding of me is a logical fallacy anyway (demanding complete answers for any of it to be true = a logical fallacy):

Again, no. Use the full quote.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
No. If you're saying it's possible, you have to tell me how. How did the explosives (or thermite) get there? It wasn't put there by the builders...Every part of the theory must be supportable, even with another theory...So start theorising.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Do you want me to just make stuff up, pull it out of my ass for you?

No, just read again.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
No. If you're saying it's possible, you have to tell me how. How did the explosives (or thermite) get there? It wasn't put there by the builders...Every part of the theory must be supportable, even with another theory...So start theorising.

Besides which, there is a sizeable number who think "make stuff up, pull it out of my ass for you" is exactly what you are doing anyway.


bolds by me.