Where did the towers go?

Originally posted by samkent
It seem to me that only a few people on conspiracy websites don't understand the collapse.

Why is it that these a&e 1500 don't come forward with calculations to show that the planes could not have caused the collapse?

Some one could place the plans in your lap and you could not show, with calculations, the buildings should still be standing because you do not have the structural background.

These 1500 claim they do have the background. And still they don't come forward with court worthy proof.

Claims from the a&e1500 and claims from the keyboard warriors do nor equal proof.

More crap about calculations without data. What are calculations worth if the correct data cannot be plugged into the equations?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

What are calculations worth it the correct data cannot be plugged into them?

Then how do these 1500 know where the mythical charges were placed?

Since all the floors were supported at either the outside walls or at the core the only places you could place the charges were these two spots.

"Gee Sally all of a sudden we have these lumps in between all of our windows!"
"Yea they weren't there yesterday. The girls down stairs say they have them too."

And no one mentioned anything after the collapse.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

What are calculations worth it the correct data cannot be plugged into them?

Then how do these 1500 know where the mythical charges were placed?

Since all the floors were supported at either the outside walls or at the core the only places you could place the charges were these two spots.

"Gee Sally all of a sudden we have these lumps in between all of our windows!"
"Yea they weren't there yesterday. The girls down stairs say they have them too."

And no one mentioned anything after the collapse.

So that is that only where they could have been placed because YOU SAY SO.

That doesn't explain what destroyed the core that supported the inner edge of the floors. Oh yes, you ignore the core and all of the horizontal beams there. Which we don't know the mass of. So as long as people stick with your circular logic everything makes sense.

psik

Something that no one has commented on is the hurricane that lay offshore on 9/11 near New York City, Hurricane Erin. Even Wikipedia listed it as the longest lasting hurricane of the 2001 season. Yet despite this, it was not reported on in the media.
Source and pic here

I feel I must bring this forward because Canadians watch the weather systems like hawks and the maritime provinces especially watch and report on everything that can impact them. No surprise there, they are avid fishermen and pay very close attention to such things. However, it is a characteristic of the US media to stop reporting on a hurricane event as soon as it leaves US waters, even though that same system can hit land and kill people further north, cause injuries and devastate properties in the Canadian maritime provinces. Not meant as criticism, I'm just stating the usual media procedure.

So even as I monitored the airwaves for inclement weather, there was nothing mentioned about it after it passed Bermuda, even though that sucker headed up the coast and sat in wait outside New York for a few days, increasing in intensity from a category 1 to a category 3 with winds of 120 mph! To me that is nothing short of astonishing. Suddenly it began to move, following an unusual path. It veered east, not a smooth turn, but a sharp sudden turn of over 180 degrees. Then it corrected to the west a little to follow the north gulf stream passage.
Illustration of path here

Military involvement
For those of you who somehow might not know, there was a military project back in 1996 called ‘Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025’
Source and pdf file here

To suppose that the military was unaware of Erin requires a serious rethink. It ias not even a debatable point. The US military most definitely knew about it because it was one of their stated objectives to know about weather and to control it since years ago. Of course someone will come along and point out with some accuracy that I don't know for certain that they altered the course of that hurricane, but there is nothing to say that they did not try (and succeed, I might add.) C'mon, it was hushed in the media. I won't impose a you Tube video on you about it, but feel free to do a YT search for them, as there are a few on the subject.

In 2006, CNN reported here that China's weather bureau was planning to stave off rain for the Olympics in 2008. And in its latest 5 year plan, China announced that it plans to increase rain by 10% in the next four years. So it's quite obvious that there is some serious attention being paid to weather modification.

Tesla was a Russian whose discoveries over a hundred years ago were known to Russia. Think they haven't developed weather control stuff?

Now as for weaponry, did you know Senator Pell of Rhode Island was quoted in The Providence Journal Bulletin, 1975 as follows:

"The U.S. and other world powers should sign a treaty to outlaw tampering with weather as an instrument of war. It may seem far fetched to think of using weather as a weapon but I'm convinced that the U.S. did, in fact, use rainmaking techniques as a weapon of war in Southeast Asia. We need a treaty now to prevent such actions...before military leaders of the world start directing storms, manipulating climates and inducing earthquakes against the enemies. The basic idea of environmental warfare is simple.....if a nation can learn to trigger natural events it can inflict terrible damage on an enemy through rainfall, flooding, tidal waves, earthquakes and even climate changes that could devastate an enemy nation's agriculture."

In the following year,1976, the United Nations Treaty against using weather modification weapons as warfare against other nations was signed on Dec 16th. That's right, nineteen seventy-six. The cover letter can quickly be viewed here here Click on first item.

Sorry, computer problems. Have to stop here for now.

reply to post by aboutface


Hurricane Erin has to be acknowledged. All the hurricane sites list it and it's behaviour seems odd even to the uninformed. Once it is acknowledged the choice is to say it may have been involved in some way or to say this is ANOTHER of those 9/11 coincidences like the 2.3 trillion dollars etc. etc. etc.

Hurricane Erin everybody. If you don't already know look it up.

Originally posted by Kester
reply to post by aboutface

 

Hurricane Erin has to be acknowledged. All the hurricane sites list it and it's behaviour seems odd even to the uninformed. Once it is acknowledged the choice is to say it may have been involved in some way or to say this is ANOTHER of those 9/11 coincidences like the 2.3 trillion dollars etc. etc. etc.

Hurricane Erin everybody. If you don't already know look it up.

What do you think Erin did that was so unusual and how do you think it effected the outcome of 911? Look up historical hurricane tracks and show how Erin was different.

reply to post by pteridine


The really odd thing about Erin was that it was not reported on to any significant degree in the media....they usually milk a hurricane to death for ratings, the days leading up to 9/11 no mention of it. Questionable behavior.

Originally posted by Pilot
reply to post by pteridine

 

The really odd thing about Erin was that it was not reported on to any significant degree in the media....they usually milk a hurricane to death for ratings, the days leading up to 9/11 no mention of it. Questionable behavior.

Erin missed Bermuda by 100 miles, broke up in early September and then reformed. It was tracking well away from the US and ended up as a storm raining on Newfoundland. How was the media lax in reporting?

reply to post by Pilot


My point exactly. I taped everything I could for days and nowhere in there was there any mention of the hurricane. I looked it up on Google, and weather sites and it's as though it did not exist at all. It was only after some YT videos came out and Judy Wood paid attention to it that it started to show up. So yes, there was something abnormal with the lack of media coverage of it.

Now, I am not a genius by any stretch of the imagination. I am also not an engineer, but I am going to take a shot at this dead horse.

1) 2 Planes hit the buildings.
2) The fire and damage caused the buildings to fall.
3) They then used heavy machinery to remove the debris.
4) The steel would have been recycled, and the debris would have been taken to a landfill.

Answer: Hit, Fell, Recycled and Reused

Before hitting enter, I checked my "check stub" and looked in the mirror. I assure you, I do not get paid by the govt. and I do not have a wool coat...

Edit to add: In case someone was worried about the physical position of my eyelids, I assure you they are open. I would hate to have someone waste their oh so precious breath by telling me to open my "Paid shill, sheeple eyes.

reply to post by aboutface

The wikipedia page describes the storm.
en.wikipedia.org...(2001)

and NOAA describes the storm and shows the track. NYC did not appear to be threatened.

www.nhc.noaa.gov...
"Tropical Cyclone Report, Hurricane Erin,1 - 15 September 2001
Richard J. Pasch and Daniel P. Brown
National Hurricane Center
20 November 2001
Revised: 25 January 2002"

"Erin was the third of a series of four "interrupted track" tropical cyclones during the 2001 Atlantic hurricane season. After re-forming, it strengthened to a category three hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, just to the east of Bermuda."

reply to post by KillShotMi


Very good.

One small detail has escaped you.

The proportion of the buildings which travelled upwards in a dust cloud visible with the naked eye from the space station.

In order for your statements to be accurate you must revise the word 'fell'. A little more detail would be appropriate.

reply to post by Kester


How do we know it was visible with "the naked eye" from the ISS?

Are you saying the building was moving up, or the dust cloud was?

reply to post by KillShotMi


Well did you open your eyes long enough to watch the video in the OP? Cause that's what this thread is about. Thanks for dropping by though.

reply to post by KillShotMi


Reported as such. We couldn't be sure without being in there ourselves. Not a lot of room for all of us.

The dust is a considerable proportion of the buildings. The proportion of the buildings travelling upwards is notable.

Thomas Cahill is a source of information regarding the dust.

Can't get the link to work but googling Thomas Cahill WTC will get plenty of information.

Originally posted by Kester
reply to post by KillShotMi

 

Reported as such. We couldn't be sure without being in there ourselves. Not a lot of room for all of us.

The dust is a considerable proportion of the buildings. The proportion of the buildings travelling upwards is notable.

Thomas Cahill is a source of information regarding the dust.

Can't get the link to work but googling Thomas Cahill WTC will get plenty of information.

What 'considerable proportion' does the dust amount to? Its upward travel would require some fraction of the energy of collapse. If you have an accurate estimate of the mass of the dust and the dust particle sizes, you may be able to estimate the energy required.

reply to post by Pilot

The really odd thing about Erin was that it was not reported on to any significant degree in the media....they usually milk a hurricane to death for ratings, the days leading up to 9/11 no mention of it. Questionable behavior.

Reason Erin did not rate much attention was fact that it was nowhere near land - closest approach was 100
miles from Bermuda

News editors dont waste newspaper space or airtime on storm in middle of Atlantic

Here is track of ERIN

en.wikipedia.org...(2001)

Originally posted by aboutface

Something that no one has commented on is the hurricane that lay offshore on 9/11 near New York City, Hurricane Erin. Even Wikipedia listed it as the longest lasting hurricane of the 2001 season. Yet despite this, it was not reported on in the media.
Source and pic here

Bolding mine

Do truthers actually read their sources? Here is what I got from your link, aboutface:

Matthew Taylor (2001). "Hurricane Erin Spares Bermuda". Associated Press.
Associated Press (2001). "Weakening Hurricane Erin spawns strong waves along East Coast"
Associated Press (2001-09-10). "Erin brushes past Bermuda, heads out to sea".

So much for "not reported by the media"

reply to post by Six Sigma


*Grin* Yes, I know what was written, but a lot of it was written after the fact. At the time of the coming up to Canada, I searched the net to see what was written, because the reporting was unusually light. It was written up as a tropical depression and a tropical storm only when it was bearing down on Newfoundland. I could not find the appellation of hurricane anywhere. It may read well today, but it sure didn't show up on tv which is the medium I was mostly following at that time.

As for your labeling me a truther, *grin*, I love the way people just do that, as though there are people who don't like to know the truth. I am not a fanatic of any kind. What got me interested first and foremost in listening to what Judy Wood had to say was the way she was being treated. Someone who makes a claim that is so far out in left field of public opinion is usually shrugged off without further attention. But people were and are still listening to her and the effort put into personal attacks only show up the attacker, not what she is presenting.

Originally posted by aboutface
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

*Grin* Yes, I know what was written, but a lot of it was written after the fact.

Should the press be clairvoyant? That's an unusually high standard to adhere to. I'll pick up a newspaper now, and look up the sports pages. I'm not a betting man, but this is too easy.