Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

reply to post by Yankee451


You do know that the damage in your picture is from WTC 2, right?

That plane didn't hit dead center.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Yankee451

 

You do know that the damage in your picture is from WTC 2, right?

That plane didn't hit dead center.

Jebus crisco! Are you the best we have?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/72e80a32c0aa.jpg[/atsimg]

The above translates to "are you really that thick?",

reply to post by Yankee451


I thought you were referring to the picture of the damage to the exterior on the second tower. That plane came in at an angle. It was the first tower that was hit head-on. And if one plane can make it through, why would the first plane be any different? Oh, that's right, you don't believe either plane even existed... somehow, a plane going near 500 mph is going to just bounce off of the impenetrable God that is steel.

I mean, does someone have to fire an actual plane at a complete reconstruction of the twin towers just to prove that it can happen?

Edit: Ahh, I may be mistaken. The first plane was tilted on impact as well, but more straight on. I was just looking at the pictures NIST used in their report. (ironically I've never actually read NIST's report lol)

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by TheIsraelite777

 

In other words:
"I want an eyewitness to this."
"Here you go."
"An eyewitness? I don't think it's real. Provide me with another!"
"What the heck?"
Honestly, you CAN'T discount anything that disagrees with you just because it disagrees.

You can't expect to prove your case with just one witness? I mean how? That man may have been hallucinating due to stress. Personally, at night whenever I take something to help me sleep, when I'm laying down sometimes I smell stuff that isn't their. I forget what my doctor called it, but it can happen. That guy must have been out of his mind whenever all that stuff happened. How are we supposed to know for sure though? Go read this link for more info.

www.charminghealth.com...

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by TheIsraelite777

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Game_Over
reply to post by vipertech0596

 

Exactly. You saw the fireball.

You can see how tall the buildings are and what floor each of the jets hit.

Are you suggesting that there was enough liquid fuel left over after the fireball that went down the elevator shafts?

Chew on this game -over

British-born survivor Paul Neal tells how he smelt jet fuel rushing through the lift shafts close to his desk. "I recognised it because I'm a private pilot. I recall smelling it and instantly dismissed it as being illogical because it didn't have any place in the World Trade Center."

May be YOU have seen to many Hollywood explosions

edit on 24-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: line added

That doesn't mean anything, that's one man's opinion. Show me another eyewitness report. Go ahead, show me.

It does mean something HE was in the buildING were YOU... NO!

I'm sorry your basing your whole case on one eyewitnesses report. You need a lot more if you going to prove anything. Like I stated in my other post, the man could have hallucinated. It's possible.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by TheIsraelite777

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Game_Over
reply to post by vipertech0596

 

Exactly. You saw the fireball.

You can see how tall the buildings are and what floor each of the jets hit.

Are you suggesting that there was enough liquid fuel left over after the fireball that went down the elevator shafts?

Chew on this game -over

British-born survivor Paul Neal tells how he smelt jet fuel rushing through the lift shafts close to his desk. "I recognised it because I'm a private pilot. I recall smelling it and instantly dismissed it as being illogical because it didn't have any place in the World Trade Center."

May be YOU have seen to many Hollywood explosions

edit on 24-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: line added

That doesn't mean anything, that's one man's opinion. Show me another eyewitness report. Go ahead, show me.

It does mean something HE was in the buildING were YOU... NO!

I'm sorry your basing your whole case on one eyewitnesses report. You need a lot more if you going to prove anything. Like I stated in my other post, the man could have hallucinated. It's possible.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by TheIsraelite777

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Game_Over
reply to post by vipertech0596

 

Exactly. You saw the fireball.

You can see how tall the buildings are and what floor each of the jets hit.

Are you suggesting that there was enough liquid fuel left over after the fireball that went down the elevator shafts?

Chew on this game -over

British-born survivor Paul Neal tells how he smelt jet fuel rushing through the lift shafts close to his desk. "I recognised it because I'm a private pilot. I recall smelling it and instantly dismissed it as being illogical because it didn't have any place in the World Trade Center."

May be YOU have seen to many Hollywood explosions

edit on 24-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: line added

That doesn't mean anything, that's one man's opinion. Show me another eyewitness report. Go ahead, show me.

It does mean something HE was in the buildING were YOU... NO!

I'm sorry your basing your whole case on one eyewitnesses report. You need a lot more if you going to prove anything. Like I stated in my other post, the man could have hallucinated. It's possible.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by TheIsraelite777

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Game_Over
reply to post by vipertech0596

 

Exactly. You saw the fireball.

You can see how tall the buildings are and what floor each of the jets hit.

Are you suggesting that there was enough liquid fuel left over after the fireball that went down the elevator shafts?

Chew on this game -over

British-born survivor Paul Neal tells how he smelt jet fuel rushing through the lift shafts close to his desk. "I recognised it because I'm a private pilot. I recall smelling it and instantly dismissed it as being illogical because it didn't have any place in the World Trade Center."

May be YOU have seen to many Hollywood explosions

edit on 24-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: line added

That doesn't mean anything, that's one man's opinion. Show me another eyewitness report. Go ahead, show me.

It does mean something HE was in the buildING were YOU... NO!

I'm sorry your basing your whole case on one eyewitnesses report. You need a lot more if you going to prove anything. Like I stated in my other post, the man could have hallucinated. It's possible.

reply to post by Yankee451


Yankee451 you claim no planes, you claim missile, you claim concrete cores ,you claim the planes could not go through the building so lets see.

You can't show proof of the missile, your best shot at no planes was a graphic system that could paint a srtaight yellow line on a live tv picture 2 yrs after the event just, you can provide NO PICTURES of concrete around core steel during construction, were's your calculations re the impact is your abacus broken!!!
Did they actually teach any science at your school or was it was one of these backward religious schools you went to you know the kind that says the bible is 100% real and the earth is only 6000 yrs old is that the reason you think like you do!

The 3 PICTURES by Tina,Robert and Wolfgang taken in similar line of site were taken by different cameras which can be seen by looking at the pictures and as they have NO data re the cameras or lenses used YOU CANT TELL if they were taken at the SAME distance Also how many other pictures would look similar as people watched the first tower burn and the second plane apporoached.

Even on here the mods dont like NO PLANE threads becuase they are obviously BS! even other truthers hate it!

The daft site you linked me to then tried to claim that the Naudet video was computer generated they claimed this because some of the buildings looked a slightly different colour than other pictures taken around the same time in the same location. Well anyone who KNOWS anything about the workings of cameras could tell you that 2 cameras from different makers taking pictures of the same scene under the same lighting with not have 100% identical colours on both pictures, even with modern pro digital cameras that wont happen. Anyone can check reviews here.

www.dpreview.com...

They test cameras against similar models from different manufacturers and show the TEST images!

Taking as you seem to no pratical experience in ANY OF THE SUBJECTS relating to this it shows you haven't got a clue what you are taking about.

reply to post by TheIsraelite777


Clutching at straws with that then are you not its the vapour that ignites not the liquid and the plane has seperate tanks or DID you not know that.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Sphinx can you explain how this happens.



A fleck of paint damged the shuttle window toughed glass designed to resist rentry into the Earth's atmosphere so can you explain in your best science how a little fleck of paint caused this damage.

Or care to explain this.








Now you all claim the buildings are harder than the planes so the plane cant cause damage, so whats harder the plane or a bird.

So using your best science please explain!!! bet you WONT!!!

Originally posted by ANOK
So you admit that this is just a hypothesis with nothing to support the idea?

No, but nice try. Don't put words into my mouth.

Originally posted by ANOK
You expect solid proof of anything a 'truther' says, yet you will support something that has no proof whatsoever just because you think it's a way to argue away explosives. Whoever first thought of fuel flowing down elevator shafts, and exploding in basements, didn't really think it through too well, but no matter plenty of idiots believed it anyway.

How could just a few ounces of grain cause an entire grain elevator to explode?

www.nfpa.org... (BTW, the grain silo was steel and concrete)


It's called a fuel-air explosion, and it is very possible, and easily achieved. Jet fuel, or any fuel really, dropping down an elevator with give off vapors and atomize. Once the flame front reaches this, it will rapidly expand in volume.

Originally posted by ANOK

BTW this pic compare the size of the towers to the amount of jet fuel in the buildings after impact, according to NIST...(the fuel is too the right)



Yes it was a 'good try', it proved your claims are nonsense and you have nothing to support them.

See above and explain how grain suspended in air could cause so much damage.

BTW, is that the atomized size of the fuel?

reply to post by wmd_2008


I gave you your chance to state your case. You chose to mock and ridicule, as usual, but provided nothing of substance. Treating you with respect only gains more of the above.

Since your obsequious myopia for the OS is unshakable, I will remind the readers what you chose to avoid:

Yankee451 you claim no planes, you claim missile, you claim concrete cores ,you claim the planes could not go through the building so lets see.

You actually did respond about the concrete cores, this was one of the few times; but why you claim your propaganda website bears more weight than Oxford University is beyond me. We'll let the readers decide (again):

Oxford University in 1992 published this on the WTC concrete cores

Modern Skyscrapers such as the World Trade Center, New York, have steel and concrete hull-and-core structures. The central core, a reinforced concrete tower, contains lift shafts, staircases, and vertical ducts. From this core the concrete and steel composite floors span on to a steel perimeter structures: a lightweight aluminum and glass curtain wall encloses the building.

More reasons to believe there were concrete cores.

Anyone curious about the concrete cores of the WTC will like this site. It contains after destruction photos and much more.

algoxy.com...

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.

algoxy.com...

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...

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.

Blythe


Reasons to doubt a plane:

The damage does not support a wing slicing from the center-out. It shows damage to the columns on the left side, not the right; this indicates an outside-in damage pattern. A missile can explain the damage much better than a plane as the pictures show.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/465111fb6383.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c7f373e43c22.jpg[/atsimg]

It neglected the significant damage to the East side as shown from a screenshot from the Naudet film:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/466f1e00ff9d.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5c7d0c157d46.jpg[/atsimg]

The damage to the corner as shown below, is visible from multiple angles and cameras. You have not attempted to explain how a jet can cause this damage. You prefer to make me explain my theory again. I have done this ad nausea and I for one would like some reciprocity.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/badcb96f8e3e.jpg[/atsimg]

So-called scientific papers have been given by the OS faithful in an attempt to prove that an aluminum wing tip can slice through laterally reinforced structural steel columns. I have shown how these papers are simply propaganda wrapped in trigonometry, but you chose to avoid that discussion. You avoid the simplest of questions:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The main structural part of the wing is the spar – a continuous beam that extends from one tip of the wing to the other. For modeling purposes, we assumed that the mass of the wings (excluding engine) was approximately 21300kg wing M . This mass does not include the mass of the fuel in the wing tanks. Assuming that this mass is now uniformly distributed over the whole wing span and the wing is modeled as a thin-walled square section cross section ...the equivalent thickness becomes 34.5mm.

So the wing mass, most of which is between the engine and the fuselage has now been equally distributed to the whole wing. All of the material used for support is now used to create a 34.5 mm thick wing-shaped box of aluminum for the sake of their model. Is this an accurate and fair representation to begin this test with?

Faked video and photographs. When given the opportunity to prove your case using the photographs themselves, so the readers can see for themselves, you resort to a weak blanket dismissal and offer no explanation using your own words seasoned with your "thirty years' photography experience.

It appears a team of photographers was deployed to document the event, and over the years the Intelligence services release their photos to the public as propaganda.

Here is a link which breaks down the perspective of each known photographer:
the last 12 seconds

Here are examples of Tina Cart, Wolfgang Staehl and Robert Clark's work:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b943cb957974.jpg[/atsimg]
killtown.blogspot.com...


Here is a thorough discussion of the video manipulation and how it was implemented on live TV (it's not that hard):
letsrollforums.com...

Since you resorted to mocking my sources instead of showing how their information was wrong, I provided my own work to expose how the Naudet film released in 2002, contained Courchesne footage released in 2004 (as far as we know):

Naudet from 2002:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e95727ff4c99.jpg[/atsimg]

Courchesne from 2004:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5b2566aa6c27.jpg[/atsimg]
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This leaves the "Planers" with what? Faked video and false eyewitnesses like FDNY343.

In light of the fact that to believe a jet existed you need to ignore all the above, why haven't you reconsidered your position?

Varemia,

I appreciate your efforts, really. No other OSer has gone to such effort; I hope they appreciate you.

Unfortunately your argument is ignoring the NIST:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cd3c7328a48a.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Yankee451


I'm uncertain of what you're proving with that image. What is it that you're trying to say?

Is it that the planes hit differently, and that you think that means that the buildings should have behaved differently?

If so, then it can be explained that they did behave differently. One fell basically straight down, while the other fell only on one side, folding in on itself and then moving downward. Also, the tower hit second collapsed first, indicating that something different was going on inside Tower 2, which was making the collapse possibility accelerate.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Yankee451

 

I'm uncertain of what you're proving with that image. What is it that you're trying to say?

Is it that the planes hit differently, and that you think that means that the buildings should have behaved differently?

If so, then it can be explained that they did behave differently. One fell basically straight down, while the other fell only on one side, folding in on itself and then moving downward. Also, the tower hit second collapsed first, indicating that something different was going on inside Tower 2, which was making the collapse possibility accelerate.

What you were trying to do was explain how the damage to the left side of the gash "could" have been caused by the plane striking that side in the general direction of the damage:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/49f12e5d87e9.jpg[/atsimg]
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But in order for your speculation to be even remotely correct, you need to ignore the NIST report's evaluation. Which is wrong, your speculation or their report?

reply to post by Yankee451

More reasons to believe there were concrete cores.

Anyone curious about the concrete cores of the WTC will like this site. It contains after destruction photos and much more.

The only concrete in WTC was in the floors

The most noticeable change in the modern high-rise construction is a trend to using more steel and shaping lightweight steel into tubes, curves, and angles to increase its load bearing capability. The WTC has tubular steel bearing walls, fluted corrugated steel flooring and bent bar steel truss floor supports. To a modern high rise building designer steel framing is economical and concrete is a costly material. For a high-rise structural frame: columns, girders, floors and walls, steel provides greater strength per pound than concrete. Concrete is heavy. Concrete creates excessive weight in the structure of a building. Architects, designers , and builders all know if you remove concrete from a structure you have a building that weights less. So if you create a lighter building you can use columns, girders and beams of smaller dimensions, or better yet you can use the same size steel framing and build a taller structure. In News York City where space is limited you must build high. The trend over the past half-century is to create lightweight high buildings. To do this you use thin steel bent bar truss construction instead of solid steel beams. To do this you use hollow tube steel bearing walls, and curved sheet steel (corrugated) under floors. To do this you eliminate as much concrete from the structure as you can and replace it with steel. Lightweight construction means economy. It means building more with less. If you reduce the structure’s mass you can build cheaper and builder higher. Unfortunately unprotected steel warps, melts, sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 to 1200 degrees F.

The fire service believes there is a direct relation of fire resistance to mass of structure. The more mass the more fire resistance. The best fire resistive building in America is a concrete structure. The structures that limit and confine fires best, and suffer fewer collapses are reinforced concrete pre WWII buildings such as housing projects and older high rise buildings like the empire state building, The more concrete, the more fire resistance; and the more concrete the less probability of total collapse. The evolution of high- rise construction can be seen, by comparing the empire state building to the WTC. My estimate is the ratio of concrete to steel in the empire state building is 60/40. The ratio of concrete to steel in the WTC is 40/60. The tallest building in the world, the Petronas Towers, in Kula Lumpur, Malaysia, is more like the concrete to steel ratio of the empire state building than concrete to steel ratio of the WTC. Donald Trump in New York City has constructed the tallest reinforced concrete high-rise residence building.

.

Since the end of WWII builders designed most of the concrete from the modern high-rise constriction. First concrete they eliminated was the stone exterior wall. They replace them with the “curtain walls of glass, sheet steel, or plastics. This curtain wall acted as a lightweight skin to enclose the structure from the outside elements. Next the 8-inch thick concrete floors went. They were replaced with a combination of 2 or 3 inches of concrete on top of thin corrugated steel sheets. Next the masonry enclosure for stairs and elevators were replaced with several layers of sheet rock. Then the masonry smoke proof tower was eliminated in the 1968 building code. It contained too much concrete weight and took up valuable floor space. Then the solid steel beam was replace by the steel truss. And finally the concrete and brick encasement of steel columns girders and floor supports was eliminated. A lightweight spray-on coating of asbestos or mineral fiber was sprayed over the steel. This coating provided fireproofing. After asbestos was discovered hazardous vermiculite or volcanic rock ash substance was used as a spray-on coating for steel. Outside of the foundation walls and a thin 2 or 3 inches of floors surface, concrete has almost been eliminated from high-rise office building construction. If you look at the WTC rubble at ground zero you see very little concrete and lots of twisted steel.

Are you that delusional that you keep insisting the core of WTC was concrete despite all the evidence otherwise?

By the way the NEW WTC 7 and NEW WTC (Freedom tower) are built with the stairways and elevator shafts
lined with some 2 ft of high strength concrete to protect these structures

The building is being promoted as the safest skyscraper in the U.S. According to Silverstein Properties, the owner of the building, it "will incorporate a host of life-safety enhancements that will become the prototype for new high-rise construction". The building has 2 ft (60 cm) thick reinforced-concrete and fireproofed elevator and stairway access shafts. The original building used only drywall to line these shafts.[72] The stairways are wider than in the original building to permit faster egress.

Originally posted by Game_Over
-- Then several posts later you counter our rock solid logic regarding your magic fuel theory with the following statement...

"Fuel obviously went into various elevators due to the various blow-outs, though a couple elevators were serviceable by firefighters."

-- So for our info we couldn't use such a definitive term as "obviously", yet you use it yourself.

Suppose we put a little thought into the fuel down the elevator shafts business. There were only two shafts that ran the entire height of the buildings. One shaft had two elevators.

But for a liquid to fall 80 stories down an elevator shaft how much horizontal velocity can it have?

ZERO!!!

But the planes hit the buildings at over 400 mph. When the fuel tanks were ripped open and fuel started flying everywhere it had to still be doing over 200 mph. So how could the fuel slow down to ZERO to fall down an elevator shaft. So even if it got to the shaft it was splashing and bouncing of the walls. So at best there was burning fuel flowing down the sides of the elevator shaft. So how long would it take to reach the lobby and the basement? And would it explode after flowing and burning down 800ft?

psik

reply to post by thedman


I find it helpful to include links, that way the readers and I can check your work.

Edit:

PS - I gave a long list of reasons, each backed up with a source, yet you only replied to the first item on the list and you didn't even supply a source. Are you sure you're not a truther mole sent to make the OS look bad? Thanks Dawg!

reply to post by Yankee451


From Vincent Dunn, retired Deputy Chief FDNY

vincentdunn.com...

Author of "THE COLLAPSE OF BURNING BUILDINGS" - so knows something of building structures and how react under fire conditions

vincentdunn.com...