History Channel Special: "The 9/11 Conspiracies" August 12, 2007

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I was proving the pancake collapses are and were possible before 911. You stated they never were. I went with your argument that you were talking about pancake due to fire "alone". I stated that indeed this has never happened. And to this day still hasn't.


Aren't only the pancake collapses due to fire relevant here? I think it's clear that ThichHeaded was referring to those and you already understood that as well. So let's move on.



Your above posts states that WTC7 fell due to fire. That is not accurate, and you know it. There is no offical statement or report that WTC7 fell from fires ALONE.


Yeah well.. the only official (alleged) investigations have produced some very interesting 'results' regarding WTC 7.

The 911 Commission Report ignores WTC 7 altogether and NIST's claimed that:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. ... the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.


And so far they only have come up with an hypothesis, and we're still waiting on a real investigation.




posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
ThichHead...

Don't try to sway your false statements to make ME look bad. Heck even your post above is false. .



Ok I am sorry I will add why WTC 7 supposedly fell..

What is said why it fell.. I am sorry I didn't put the whole thing up there to make you happy about things..


OK people here is what is said why WTC 7 fell..

WTC 7 was a happy building, and on a bright cloudless sky on 9/11/01 things became tragic for such building. It became the fate of a CD.. I mean crashing down of debris of another building that was demo'ed... I mean... Crazily on fire showing bright ass orange steel after a plane hit it and caused it to fall..

Anyway while this building fell, it BLEW all the fireproofing off the steel that was in WTC 7 and started a fire in the diesel lines that was holding diesel fuel in the building.. Altho 99% of that fuel was recovered...

Anyway needless to say the building supposedly fell due to debris from one of the towers AND FIRE.

Next time I will make it simple and easy for people to understand.. OK?
And more info on WTC 7 Collapse.. please by all means go here..

www.studyof911.com...

This is a modern marvels episode that aired showing what they think caused WTC 7 collapse..

[edit on 8/5/2007 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 8/5/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Pancake collapses have been around since the construction of buildings. Typical pancake collapses were and still are caused by diferent reasons, one being earthquakes.


Never in steel structures. I'll let a structural engineer explain it:


Charles Pegelow: As far as the pancake theory, that's not even applicable to steel structures. Actually, I think it seems like, some of the stuff I'm seeing is that NIST is sort of backing away from that theory now.

First of all, it's a fully-welded structure. You may get deflections, and settlement, but you wouldn't get an immediate collapse on a floor unless you took out all the columns at the same time. …

There's been a lot of disinformation going around. One is that these weak bolts fractured and fell apart. Yeah, there was bolts holding both ends of these trusses in, but those are what's called erection bolts: you initially have to hook it together. And then afterwards, they come in, on the seat of the joist, which is most of the time just two angles back to back, you go in there and you run a seal weld around it. So these are welded up. …

So this pancake theory is something that doesn't hold up. It's a phenomenon that doesn't happen in steel structures. Pancake collapses happen mainly in certain types of concrete construction, and this is not all concrete, just certain types. And this is where you put your columns in, and you pour a slab, and around these columns you've got a pocket. And once its cured, by two days, you come in and pour another slab. And then you lift these slabs up, one by one, you see the pockets, the columns sliding in them, and then once you get them up there, then you tie them off to the columns.

And this is where sometimes there's problems. They're not tied off secure enough, or a lot of times these accidents happen at construction and by the time the last one gets there it falls down, but you understand they're not even connected to the columns except by some construction jacks at time. And then of course, the other times they get collapses, they had a lot of these in Mexico during the '70s on apartment buildings during earthquakes, so I don't know, I just have a feeling that their concrete wasn't mixed right, they cheated on as much rebar as they needed, or something like that. But anyway, that's a conventional pancake collapse. It doesn't happen in steel buildings.

Jim Fetzer: And Charles, when it's all said and done, don't you have a stack of floors there on top of one another, which is the reason it's called a "pancake"?

CP: Yeah. Yeah, they just, you're right. They just pancake down. Now, they're all busted up, but they don't turn to dust.


www.911podcasts.com...

And that's LPSE Charles Pegelow, a guy with 30+ years experience in structural engineering with a number of groups, having worked with steel structures, and even steel structures often exposed to hydrocarbon fires (oil rigs), being interviewed by Jim Fetzer.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Ok I am sorry I will add why WTC 7 supposedly fell..


Maybe you can grow up and post some facts. Your posts are not logical and your condesending jibber jabber is not at all impressive, it just furthers my opinion on the amount of knowledge you have with 911.

For someone to claim they have been working with steel for a life time...I'm curious as to how you dont even know the proper temperatures for melting and/or weakening. www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Yeah, but this wasn't just a fire. You do remember a plane slammed into the building correct?



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   
thanks for the chart val, the one i remember was more colorful and attention getting, but this one works as well...(see previous page)

cc, they're going to reply with..."the building was designed to withstand a 707 impact"...however you should ask them for the blueprints or even the structural mathmatics that make it so....not just the frank interview, which is what many go on.....there were no tests ran, proving that it could stand up to the plane impact.....



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Exactly, when they want to rely on some guys word, they'll rely on his word, but when we show another guy saying something else they'll call us out saying he could be wrong. and it goes in circles.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
cc, they're going to reply with..."the building was designed to withstand a 707 impact"...however you should ask them for the blueprints or even the structural mathmatics that make it so....not just the frank interview, which is what many go on.....



Well then if that's what you want, then here you go!:


Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson White Paper

A white paper on the structure of the Twin Towers carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson contained eleven numbered points, including:

3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.


--City in the Sky, p 131


stj911.org...


Remember, this was printed in "City in the Sky" with information directly from Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson, which was one of the engineering groups involved in designing the towers.


Why is this so hard to believe when the 767 impacts only knocked out less than 15% of the columns on the impacted floors in either building?

[edit on 5-8-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   
www.sciam.com...

"The lateral truss systems redistributed the load when other critical members were lost. It's a testament to the system that they lasted so long."

first paragraph on page 3


the rest of page 3 is interesting read....thank you bsb for that book....i'm going to have to pick it up sometime....this site i have linked says the press said that it was designed to withstand a jet....

also if you initialy take out 15% and then slowly naw at another 20%...that leaves 65%......



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   
"slowly naw at 20%"

slowly?

1 hour

20%?

says who???

the "lateral truss system" also sheared at the outer wall hangers in a DOWNWARD motion while not failing at the central core hangers.

Are there comments on this aspect of it?



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   
it's all guess work....and after searching....i didnt find anything that said x% was destroyed weakend, upon initial impact or during the fires afterwards etc.....



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Sorry guys, this quote was a couple pages back, but had to comment quick..

Originally posted by ccaihc
Ok, but it is impossible to smuggle a ridiculous amount of bombs in. How would they have carried them through the elevators without someone noticing.

I don't know how many times I have to reiterate this. Do you have any idea how many pounds of bombs it would take to do what you say it needs to do?

Regardless of how much was needed to do the job, wasn't there many reports of residence, specificaly those in the basement who were asked to clear out for the weekend? And didn't a whole trade center perform some mantinence that left the security of both towers unprotected? Honestly, Im not a major expert on these matters, as you are all, but I was thinking of this and cant remeber which reports I had heard these on.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by nowayreally
Sorry guys, this quote was a couple pages back, but had to comment quick..

Originally posted by ccaihc
Ok, but it is impossible to smuggle a ridiculous amount of bombs in. How would they have carried them through the elevators without someone noticing.

I don't know how many times I have to reiterate this. Do you have any idea how many pounds of bombs it would take to do what you say it needs to do?

Regardless of how much was needed to do the job, wasn't there many reports of residence, specificaly those in the basement who were asked to clear out for the weekend? And didn't a whole trade center perform some mantinence that left the security of both towers unprotected? Honestly, Im not a major expert on these matters, as you are all, but I was thinking of this and cant remeber which reports I had heard these on.


www.911myths.com...

Should answer any and all questions you have about the ability to plant explosives in a building.

In particular


In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 "primary delays" and an additional 216 “micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum.

www.controlled-demolition.com...

Furthermore,

But would that really explain all the reasons used to justify the controlled demolition theory in the first place? We’re told it’s suspicious that “all the concrete was pulverised”, for example: could a “relatively small amount of explosives” explain that?


This article alone should be enough to destroy the CD theory but I know how rabid you guys are... There is nothing I can do change your mind.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Hey thanks CC!
Most of the time I get discouraged with the people who are 'official story' because all they do is debunk, but do not explain themselves as to why the contradiction has been perpetuated or misdirected from both sides.
The article played devils advocate, and it was a good read. Thank you!

I do recall seeing various witnesses talking about having to go 'away for the weekend' the week before. If this 'security' shut down is bogus, what about that, if you dont mind me asking?



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by nowayreally
Hey thanks CC!
Most of the time I get discouraged with the people who are 'official story' because all they do is debunk, but do not explain themselves as to why the contradiction has been perpetuated or misdirected from both sides.
The article played devils advocate, and it was a good read. Thank you!

I do recall seeing various witnesses talking about having to go 'away for the weekend' the week before. If this 'security' shut down is bogus, what about that, if you dont mind me asking?


I'm happy to help man. Can you provide me with some sources of this leaving for the weekend thing? Shutting down a company office is a pretty big deal, especially since the companies that are within the WTC were big corporate offices.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by wenfieldsecret
also if you initialy take out 15% and then slowly naw at another 20%...that leaves 65%......


There's no evidence that the fires were hot enough for long enough to do that much damage (or ANY significant damage!), and there's no scientific precedent for fires being able to do that in steel buildings. Look it up. Even NIST's tests showed it. And the building wouldn't fail until more than half of its columns completely failed, even if it was just barely up to code.

[edit on 5-8-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Hey CC-
video.google.com...
I hope I did that right.
You may have seen the video before, Im not sure, but the part I was referring to starts at 1hour five minutes. They name a financial analysis as another testimony in addition to Forbes. Unfortunately, that wasn't the right piece of video I saw the prior weekend account information on. I'll look around a little, and get back to you!



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:51 PM
link   
i believe they are talking of the scott forbes interview....where he was working extra hard the weekend prior, because of a power down they were doing on wtc 2 from the 48-50th floor on up, for a 36 hour power down.....because 36 hours is more than enough time to wire 60 floors......

911myths take on this


p.s. bsb, i'm going to have to retort with the stereo typical, "there's no precedent for this event"...due to the fact that neither side can be proven when it comes to how hot the fire is....

but there's also the theory that the planes surviving aluminum melted into pools melting thru the trusses...creating hot spots and hurting colums....it's on the web page i added earlier on a different reply.....page 3

[edit on 5-8-2007 by wenfieldsecret]



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by nowayreally
Hey CC-
video.google.com...
I hope I did that right.
You may have seen the video before, Im not sure, but the part I was referring to starts at 1hour five minutes. They name a financial analysis as another testimony in addition to Forbes. Unfortunately, that wasn't the right piece of video I saw the prior weekend account information on. I'll look around a little, and get back to you!


Sorry man, I'm not to keen on 9/11 truth videos. They love to add stuff that never happened. If you can find a first hand source or something of that sort(an interview, etc) I'd be happy to look at it.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ccaihc
www.911myths.com...

Should answer any and all questions you have about the ability to plant explosives in a building.


Funny... that site is the MOST COMMON site used by debunkers AND it has no listed authors or anything of the sort... garbage.

The authors will not even tell their names.

Total junk to be disregarded.


Originally posted by ccaihc


In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 "primary delays" and an additional 216 “micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum.

www.controlled-demolition.com...

Furthermore,

This article alone should be enough to destroy the CD theory but I know how rabid you guys are... There is nothing I can do change your mind.


This is VERY disingenuous... Comparing the Hudson's building (correct?) to the WTC is totally ridiculous.

Tell me this is the Hudson's building and I will link you to the thread on this site where I explain why you are being very misleading in your postings here.

[edit on 6-8-2007 by Pootie]





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join