911 - A View From Across The Pond, page
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 7-8-2007 @ 12:38 PM by budski
I think that this is the first time I've actually written something in this forum, but now that it's calmed down a bit, I'd like to make a few points.
These are just my point of view, and I have no agenda regarding 911, apart from an interest in the debate as a whole. I've also read a head to head debate that was very good indeed.

I'm naturally a skeptic, but having said this, I try to approach things with an open mind.

What I've seen and read in this forum has led me to reach no conclusion whatsoever.
There are threads which contain good information, but which provide no solid evidence.
There are threads which I find pretty implausible, and which contain nothing but vitriol for those unwilling to "see the light".
This goes for both sides of the argument.

There's something to be said for the speculative arguments, in that the more reasonable ones at least have the benefit of helping look at things from a different angle.

Maybe my skepticism is a cultural thing, in that it didn't happen in the UK - but don't forget, there have been many more bombings/acts of terror (if indeed that's what happened) in the UK than there have in the US - not just about 911, but for the last few decades.

My own view of government is that neither of our respective governments could organise a drunkfest in a brewery - that's not to say they couldn't try, but more that they couldn't keep it a secret for very long.

There are also people who have made a living from 911, either from the conspiracy side or from the no-conspiracy side - I'm sure you can tell me who they are.

So here goes - from a skeptic with an open mind - I'm willing to hear why, or why not this was a conspiracy.

Convince me.


reply posted on 7-8-2007 @ 01:21 PM by bsbray11
Here's something else to consider:




Ok, so you have floors pulling in the outer columns, then falling onto the next floor, and pulling in those columns, etc. without failing the connections, so that the perimeter columns can be deflected so the collapse can continue.

Three things I would point out, are that this theory doesn't explain what happened to the core (which was the most robust part of the building, in the middle, and appears to have symmetrically and instantly failed as soon as the collapses began), at what point the truss connections would actually fail (none remained connected so far as I'm aware), and where are all the floors at the bottom of the buildings?




All that was left in WTC1's footprint was a small part of the core still standing:




This is what pancake collapses actually produce:




And this is what a licensed, professional structural engineer, Charles Pegelow, of some 30 years of experience as a structural engineer, has said about pancake collapses in steel buildings:

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...


There's also an organization of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth that currently has 135 full architectural/engineering professional members and 248 other members. The user "Griff" here is a member of this organization if I'm not mistaken, and he's a civil engineer himself.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by bsbray11]


reply posted on 7-8-2007 @ 06:44 PM by 2PacSade
Originally posted by budski

Are there any creditable, unbiased, independent reports that are available?


The official reports sometimes prove both sides of the story I think. . .

Originally posted by 2PacSade
In the NIST 2004 " preliminary " report, page L-51, it states;

The working hypothesis, for the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, if it holds up upon further analysis,
would suggest that it was a classic progressive collapse that included:
• An initial local failure due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column, which supported a large span floor area of about 2,000 ft2, at the lower floors (below Floor 14) of the building,
• Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse bringing down the interior structure under the east penthouse, and
• Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.


Emphasis mine, but where has this " classic progressive collapse " ever happened before or since???

I believe the correct answer to this question is in ONLY in a controlled demolition.

The most profound thing I got out of this hypothesis is the fact that if someone WANTED to initiate a total collapse one would only have to perform the following;

A vertical collapse appears to have occurred after interior columns 79, 80, and/or 81 failed.


This vertical progression causes a horizontal progression which in turn causes total collapse. No need to wire the whole building with expolsives!

According to NIST's own hypothesis, it would be this easy. If this is so then wouldn't this answer questions like;

" If this was a controlled demolition then why didn't anybody find DET cord/blasting caps/etc. during the cleanup process?"

You can read the whole report
here

And for those of you that state this building didn't fall into it's own footprint;

The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building. From aerial photos, the debris visible on top of the pile is mostly façade structure. This failure sequence suggests that the interior of the building collapsed before the exterior.


NIST does not agree with you. . .

How can anyone state that it would have been impossible for someone to have performed a CD on this building and not get caught when NIST is directly telling you how easy it could have been done?

2PacSade-


From a thread here

Hope this helps. . .

2PacSade-
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Flight 93 was headed for Building 7
  Posted 10 days ago with 48 member flags
9/11 INTERCEPTED
  Posted 2 days ago with 45 member flags
9/11: The WTC Elevator Key
  Posted 12 days ago with 43 member flags
What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?
  Posted 6 days ago with 17 member flags
Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?
  Posted 14 days ago with 13 member flags
Was the government a co-conspirator?
  Posted 16 days ago with 9 member flags
British Police Want Us To Present False Flag Terror Evidence.
  Posted 6 days ago with 8 member flags