Originally posted by thedman

Secondly you wouldn't need to cut through sheetrock or move furniture, you pop the suspended ceiling tiles and have direct access to the columns. Don't believe me? go to a skyscraper and pop those ceiling tiles and look for yourself.

Just one problem - the columns are covered by fireproofing materials

The main support columns were covered with 2 layers of 5/8 sheetrock.
whats more the main support columns were clustered in the central core covered by wall. Also no false ceiling as were in central service core with elevators plumbing, electrical conduits, bathrooms, stairs.

Now explain how one cuts through wall to reach columns coated in 2 layers
of sheetrock and not attract attention....

I really wish you guys would look into this stuff before you come on here spewing it to others, and I don't mean a quick Google search.

First of all the asbestos fireproofing was spray on, and it was an average of about 1-1/2 inch thick, it wasn't just some sheetrock slapped up against it, research it.

"whats more the main support columns were clustered in the central core covered by wall. Also no false ceiling as were in central service core with elevators plumbing, electrical conduits, bathrooms, stairs."
I have seen the architectural design of both the towers and WTC 7 which are very similar, and what you describe is not accurate.

Check out the architectural design and you will see how painfully obvious it is that your assumptions, while they may be good assumptions, and may 'sound great on paper' are not based in reality.
Someone could have accessed the columns without having to cut anything. Do you think everytime a fire inspector went into the WTC complex they ripped down walls for him to inspect the asbestos fireproofing?

Originally posted by thedman
All the columns unlike a demolition are covered in layers
of sheet rock behind furniture.

Thanks for proving my point about the fireproofing.

ever cut piece of sheet rock?

Yes. I do it all the time in my profession.

Leaves hell of a
lot of dust everywhere),

That it does. I guess NYC has never heard of plastic and shop vacs?

place explosives, repair hole/paint hole, replace
furniture and clean up mess- all in a few hours and not have anyone notice it?

Who says they didn't notice it? I'm cutting holes in drywall, poking my head in ceilings, etc. etc all day long sometimes. You think people really notice?

Although, I do have to say that since 9/11 some people are more attentive to things. Which I give a big thumbs up for.

Originally posted by Griff

Also keep in mind that buckled columns still have some resistance to them. So, the only way to have a freefall is to remove the column's resistance 100%.

Are you claiming freefall now too?

BTW, the Bazant paper that you said you agreed with proved that the buckled columns were something like 2% the strength needed to arrst the collapse.

Perhaps you should read it again.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Are you claiming freefall now too?

For 2.5 seconds the building fell with an acceleration that was very close to 9.8 m/s^2, which is the same as free fall acceleration. NIST confirm this.

How do you explain that, Seymour?

Originally posted by tezzajw

For 2.5 seconds the building fell with an acceleration that was very close to 9.8 m/s^2, which is the same as free fall acceleration. NIST confirm this.

How do you explain that, Seymour?

Ya, how would you explain that Mr. Butz? Can you answer this seemingly simple question brought on by the "official story" tellers themselves?

A thought for the day:

If you are going to tell people the truth, you had better make them laugh or they will kill you." --Oscar Wilde.

Just looked at that notorious BBC reporting with commentator Jane Standley in front of a window talking about a building having collapsed while it's still visible behind here.


Might be convincing evidence of foreknowlwedge but it looks to me like something with a less insidious explanation. The BBC took a feed of her in a studio setup in New York, and plugged in a blue screen behind her to give the impression to viewers she was pointing to things she was seeing out the window, while it was really just a bare wall.

This is done a lot in news braodcast. They didn't have the minutes later footage of New York to plug in. Sloppiness on the part of the BBC.

Either that or they knew the building was going to collapse through controlled demolition, and were anxious to get this report on the air a precious few minutes faster.

The technical and timing error seems far more plausible.

btw - how come we never get specifics on the means and activities of bad guys, how they planted the bombs, who was involved, etc?

Just endless pointing to glitches in the reportage?

Where would the Truth movement be without Youtube?


Mike F




Mike F

posted by mmiichael
btw - how come we never get specifics on the means and activities of bad guys, how they planted the bombs, who was involved, etc?

Just endless pointing to glitches in the reportage?

Where would the Truth movement be without Youtube?

You expect speculation from outsiders? What good would it do? There might be dozens, even hundreds of imaginative ways to plant the explosives in the Towers, WTC7, and the Pentagon. Maybe it was demolition expertise in the Military arsenal that none of us have even heard of? How would we possibly know exactly who the perps were? The FBI doesn't even have the slightest clue who the 'hijackers' were in your OFFICIAL STORY do they? They just bull along pretending nobody knows the identities were stolen.

Where would the 9-11 Official Conspiracy Theory be without the fanatacal faithful believers?

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by Griff

Also keep in mind that buckled columns still have some resistance to them. So, the only way to have a freefall is to remove the column's resistance 100%.

Are you claiming freefall now too?

Isn't this thread about Nist admitting 2.5 seconds of freefall in WTC 7?

Care to explain just how this happens in a fire induced collapse?

Or are you just going to follow me thread by thread and argue with me over every little semantical game you can play?

BTW, the Bazant paper that you said you agreed with proved that the buckled columns were something like 2% the strength needed to arrst the collapse.

We are not talking about Bazant. We are talking about NIST's claim of freefall acceleration for 2.5 seconds.

It's funny how you blast me in one thread because I combined 1, 2 and 7 but in this thread you do it? Where's Bazant's paper about 7?

Perhaps you should read it again.

Perhaps you should.

[edit on 12/14/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 12/14/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by mmiichael
Might be convincing evidence of foreknowlwedge but it looks to me like something with a less insidious explanation. The BBC took a feed of her in a studio setup in New York, and plugged in a blue screen behind her to give the impression to viewers she was pointing to things she was seeing out the window, while it was really just a bare wall.

The thing that refutes this "scenario" would be BBC's own time stamp indicating that it was actually indeed before WTC 7 collapsed. Try again.

Grifff wrote,

" The thing that refutes this "scenario" would be BBC's own time stamp indicating that it was actually indeed before WTC 7 collapsed. Try again.
"


With all due respect, do tou think that every time stamp everywhere is exactly and accurately linked to some immutable timekeeping like the Greenwich standard?

Equipment is turned on and off, batteries run low, etc - introducing errors.
Like your electric clock reverting to 12 Oclock when there is a power loss of only a fraction of a second. Computerized systems can even slip up on dates and even years.

This is not unusual in supposedly real time broadcasting. Equipment reading error is, for me, far more plausible than the BBC being aware in advance a tower was going to come down in NYC, then jumping the gun by having a reporter comment on it while there were images of it still standing in the background.

Try Again.


MF

i work on teevee all the time. that stuff is accurate to the second.

what a LAME 'debunk' that is.

"the batteries were running low at the BBC" "the greenwich mean time was off"



the building went into FREEFALL. that means ZERO resistance, which means ZERO structural support, which means the structural support was removed by something BESIDES gravity, which would have only been able to accelerate the building downward at LESS THAN FREEFALL ACCELERATION if ANY gravitational energy was being used to break apart the building.

did the BBC put a bluescreen behind gravity?

Originally posted by mmiichael
With all due respect, do tou think that every time stamp everywhere is exactly and accurately linked to some immutable timekeeping like the Greenwich standard?

With all due respect, I have a simple watch that gets the time from the atomic clock every night and is solar powered. Do you think BBC is that off? If so, aren't "they" incompetent and need fired from "their" jobs? If my simple watch can keep better time than "them"?

[edit on 12/16/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 12/16/2008 by Griff]