WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up

reply to post by biggmoneyme


Good point. But it's because it was sloppy that the clean up is getting so messy.

The thing to remember is that they'll try to make it civil, but that's because they know we know how few of them there are. It's the machines that give the few the power.

Machines: data. surveillance in unimaginable forms. drones. the media. fear. disease. the things I could list are greater than infinity. The United States Army. racist propaganda.

'shill'. They are as real as the ground under your feet, and instinct is instinct. We all follow our own instinct.

bots will replace them. The computers really are that good. Shills will be given jobs, perhaps military positions.

Which way will that machine face, when ...when.

They intend to make it civil.

Don't forget who they are, they know everything about you, me, everyone, by very definition of what they wield and do possess.

It isn't going to be 'civil', despite the catchiness of the meme.

I am couching my language carefully to avoid outright detection of favorite omnivore and narus insight programs.

Word was sent to the leader of the panthers today.

I wonder how they received it?

reply to post by davidmann


Not sure if serious... or joking.

You should really check your paranoia there, buddy. I know that you probably only act like this online, but seriously, I don't understand the whole "everyone's out to get me" bit. Seems like a method of accentuating one's ego.

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

1. Didn't know "out of control" fire was classified as the correct environment to weaken 5in to 14 inch thick steel.

So fires burning unchecked for 5+ hours is not an issue to steel?

2. Didn't know flying debris(steel,glass and concrete) can start a fire on another steel structure 400 feet away. How many times has that happened.

Yeah who would think that flaming debris, tons of steel falling from 1000ft up, and destroyed fuel and natural gas lines can cause a fire that was unchecked for hours cause so much damage. Also this "never happened before so it shouldnt of happened now" mentality has to go. Show me how many times 767s impacted buildings like the WTC before and survived, or had another building slam into it causing fires.

3. So what happened to the steel-tube core? You see Gdeck, in perfect conditions steel beams could weaken ,but columns can't,,not enough surface damage. And the core was loaded and I mean loaded with mild steel columns(plus reinforced concrete);so if your tree tipping/pancake THEORY did happen : what happened to the core? It should have been partially standing,meaning upright ,,,, if what you say did happened.

Why cant columns get damaged after a 767 impacts them removing the substandard fireproofing and sheetrock that covered it? Oh yes and also what happens to steel columns when exposed to fires and extra loading? I'll give you a hint: its something called creep. Also can you show me the "reinforced concrete" in the core? I can tell you very new to this and still think you saw the light after reading all of those foolish truther sites. Have you seen the "Spire" after the North Tower's collapse? Pay close attention to the collapse here, you can see the core doing exactly what I said:

In some of the cuts you can see the core columns toppling over after the initial collapse, while a large section remained. Also, since the core survived, more or less, and people survived in some of the core, how can one say it was demolition?

4. Maybe you don't understand the properties of sound travel. The explosion heard from innocent americans in the lower floors and the lobby didn't come from 94th floor.

C'mon, your getting sloppy.

Right because no one in the lobby is going to hear a plane smacking into the building above them right? And those elevator cars crashing to the bottom and fireballs, none of that will make a sound right? And I'm the one getting sloppy?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Where did I copy and paste from?

Everything I wrote were original ideas I have had for a long time.

You make a lot of superficial arguements that you probably know are false!

Oh really?

Ok, which ones were false? The missing trillions? The steel-reinforced bunker Pentagon? Funny how you didnt eve bother addressing the erroneous assumptions I had to straighten out. Especially that missing trillions nonsense. My God, how many times must it be repeated that Rumsfeld said no such thing that any money was missing? Please, show me the entire quote text where he SPECIFICALLY SAID $2.3 Trillion is missing or gone or stolen. I know the text and the context better than you and the rest of the truthers that latched on this non-issue. You do realize this whole thing is a result of a Truther's crappy reading comprehension right? But hey prove me wrong. Post the whole text of Rumsfeld text on that, and I want you to highlight the exact text where he states $2.3 trillion is missing. That is all you have to do. Remember, it must say "$2.3 trillion is missing" or something close to that effect.

edit to add: Also did you know that the errors in auditing and budgeting were known even earlier in 1999?

www.defense.gov...

In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of balances, transactions and adjustments were inadequately documented. These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time. Auditors, she said, might have to go to different computer systems, to different locations or access different databases to get information.

hv.greenspun.com...

Pentagon's finances in disarray

By JOHN M. DONNELLY The Associated Press 03/03/00 5:44 PM Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military's money managers last year made almost $7 trillion in adjustments to their financial ledgers in an attempt to make them add up, the Pentagon's inspector general said in a report released Friday.

The Pentagon could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those changes, and half a trillion dollars of it was just corrections of mistakes made in earlier adjustments.

Each adjustment represents a Defense Department accountant's attempt to correct a discrepancy. The military has hundreds of computer systems to run accounts as diverse as health care, payroll and inventory. But they are not integrated, don't produce numbers up to accounting standards and fail to keep running totals of what's coming in and what's going out, Pentagon and congressional officials said.

Sorry buddy, but you and the rest of you truthers couldnt be more wrong regarding the $2.3 trillion dollars. How can someone admit it for the first time right before 9/11, when it was already known back in 1999?

reply to post by Wonderer2012


I would recommend you to go do some actual research and knock it off with your childish "shill" name calling. Facts are facts, and the fact is, you are wrong, wrong, WRONG regarding the $2.3 trillion. I already proved it and its not my fault you guys have lousy reading comprehension skills.

Can we please ban the term "smoking gun" on this website? it is way overused!

reply to post by 4hero


Need to get eyes checked ......

www.youtube.com...

1:30 in - watch as camera pans across - what do we see ?

Number of columns neatly sliced off at 45 deg angles

You lose......

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by 4hero

 

Need to get eyes checked ......

www.youtube.com...

1:30 in - watch as camera pans across - what do we see ?

Number of columns neatly sliced off at 45 deg angles

You lose......

Surely the ground clearance crews would cut steels and they would do other things like pulverize concrete etc. None of the tasks they engage negates what happened before they arrived.

Originally posted by CoolStoryMan
Can we please ban the term "smoking gun" on this website? it is way overused!

People annoyed by the term "smoking gun" is a smoking gun that they are gullible OS'ers

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by 4hero

 

Need to get eyes checked ......

www.youtube.com...

1:30 in - watch as camera pans across - what do we see ?

Number of columns neatly sliced off at 45 deg angles

You lose......

Surely the ground clearance crews would cut steels and they would do other things like pulverize concrete etc. None of the tasks they engage negates what happened before they arrived.

edit on 25-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)

What evidence have you for any cut steel prior to the clean up crews beginning operations ?

This is a truthers take. A former member of Scholars for Truth and Justice who is obviously completely disenchanted with Steven Jones over the issue :-

www.sharpprintinginc.com...:160

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath


Coming from a very neutral stance, it is hard to get an objective understanding on this. On one hand, I have seen structural engineers explain a plausible theory as to why the building fell in the manner it did and the other I am not well versed in structural engineering and I have to accept what they say as being plausible.

I can see why people take exception to the term "smoking gun" as your OP offered pictures with no evidence other than those pictures to explain the theory.

Typically I stay out of these threads because a large portion is this kindergarten pissing match about who kissed who behind the shrub, but I think both sides have good information to present; if only they would get past their own egos and start to listen, rather than put each other down.

A quick search can lead one to a plausible explanation (only if you are open to it of course) on why WTC 7 fell as it did. Here we have a structural engineer explaining a situation: WTC 7 -- A possibility on why it fell the way it did

But the OP brings valid questions that shouldn't be immediately brushed off as "secret squirrel" and shrouded in the depths of the secret government. Call it my attempt to be as objective as possible, but its okay to question and its okay to accept. I think once both sides agree to that, then answers will be found.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by 4hero

 

Need to get eyes checked ......

www.youtube.com...

1:30 in - watch as camera pans across - what do we see ?

Number of columns neatly sliced off at 45 deg angles

You lose......

Surely the ground clearance crews would cut steels and they would do other things like pulverize concrete etc. None of the tasks they engage negates what happened before they arrived.

edit on 25-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)

What evidence have you for any cut steel prior to the clean up crews beginning operations ?

This is a truthers take. A former member of Scholars for Truth and Justice who is obviously completely disenchanted with Steven Jones over the issue :-

www.sharpprintinginc.com...:160

I am not a "truther" or subject to your silly descriptions. I simply said a particular activity does not negate occurrence of an earlier one.

You provided a link to a very low resolution video of some unknown people wearing hard hats on an unknown date claiming to be clearing the WTC site.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Thank you for the link to that interesting article.Sadly I think it will just be hand-waved away before you can blink and you will likely be called a shill to boot.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Thank you for the link to that interesting article.Sadly I think it will just be hand-waved away before you can blink and you will likely be called a shill to boot.

I hope not and I have no real say in the situation really. I was hoping the OP could chime in on it. Granted it is late (or early depending on ones time cycle) and I don't expect an in depth response.

Is the linked article correct? Who knows, but it at least provides a plausible explanation. Though, given the vitrol and absolute push back from one side for arguments from anyone involved in the original story, I suspect it will be brushed off.

I am here to gain knowledge and understanding and until then, I will keep an open mind. Conspiracy or not.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by 4hero

 

Need to get eyes checked ......

www.youtube.com...

1:30 in - watch as camera pans across - what do we see ?

Number of columns neatly sliced off at 45 deg angles

You lose......

Surely the ground clearance crews would cut steels and they would do other things like pulverize concrete etc. None of the tasks they engage negates what happened before they arrived.

edit on 25-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)

What evidence have you for any cut steel prior to the clean up crews beginning operations ?

This is a truthers take. A former member of Scholars for Truth and Justice who is obviously completely disenchanted with Steven Jones over the issue :-

www.sharpprintinginc.com...:160

I am not a "truther" or subject to your silly descriptions. I simply said a particular activity does not negate occurrence of an earlier one.

You provided a link to a very low resolution video of some unknown people wearing hard hats on an unknown date claiming to be clearing the WTC site.

a) I didn't call you anything at all.

b) I asked you for evidence of any cut steel at the site prior to the clean up crews starting work; which you evidently don't have.

c) I gave a link to an article not a video. Did you read it ?

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I know about this theory and I do not buy it.

Buildings with steel superstructures do not have their stability determined by one element or one localised system of load transfer elements.

A close analogy of the "one column theory" is a wooly jumper that can be completely un-knotted by tugging on one loose wool thread. This is a cartoon like impossibility.

The theory claims that because of the catastrophic collapse of one column that there was a cascade of further collapses of other load bearing columns. This, however, does not explain the near instant nature of this cascade of failure - no resistance. Further still, the theory presupposes a wholly new kind of physics in which the downwards compressive force of a column is suddenly transferred to horizontal members and then down through other columns; thusly causing their collapse too!

Another matter to repose on is the south elevation cantilevered floors; on page 44 of the pdf you linked, it shows that there was damage from WTC 1 to the floors. The pdf does not specify which floor but it is not important because serious damage to cantilevered floors would in fact reduce load transfer to the supporting girders, columns and reinforced concrete lift and stairwell cores.

Even sequential collapsing of all the cantilevered floors (as in pancaking) will not introduce the sudden and catastrophic failure of all the other columns.

Here are examples of what should have happened;





This a section through the cantilevered floors to the south elevation of WTC 7

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by 4hero

 

Need to get eyes checked ......

www.youtube.com...

1:30 in - watch as camera pans across - what do we see ?

Number of columns neatly sliced off at 45 deg angles

You lose......

Surely the ground clearance crews would cut steels and they would do other things like pulverize concrete etc. None of the tasks they engage negates what happened before they arrived.

edit on 25-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)

What evidence have you for any cut steel prior to the clean up crews beginning operations ?

This is a truthers take. A former member of Scholars for Truth and Justice who is obviously completely disenchanted with Steven Jones over the issue :-

www.sharpprintinginc.com...:160

I am not a "truther" or subject to your silly descriptions. I simply said a particular activity does not negate occurrence of an earlier one.

You provided a link to a very low resolution video of some unknown people wearing hard hats on an unknown date claiming to be clearing the WTC site.

a) I didn't call you anything at all.

b) I asked you for evidence of any cut steel at the site prior to the clean up crews starting work; which you evidently don't have.

c) I gave a link to an article not a video. Did you read it ?

You have a coherency problem dude. My response was in relation to the video you gave to 4hero. You subsequently commented to me with a link to a photo which I did not address. You also called me a "truther".

If you cannot keep up, I will no longer respond to you. Sorry

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
I know about this theory and I do not buy it.

I appreciate the reply and explanation but I cannot help to believe that no matter the theory, if it doesn't fit your understanding, will never be "bought" by you.

Buildings with steel superstructures do not have their stability determined by one element or system of load transfer element.

This is true and the engineer acknowledged this, but also offers up why one beam led to a critical failure in the whole superstructure. Do you contend that because of its unique design, and load transfer between old building and new, that there could possible be a weakness?

If you want math -- take this for consideration: Column Buckling

Was the tower built to allow such buckling? Or course, if the view held that the tower was brought down by other means, such information seems moot. But just for a moment, believe that the tower was built to withstand a certain amount of buckling -- but the resultant fires and weakening makes it plausible....

The theory claims that because of the catastrophic collapse of one column that they was a cascade of further collapses of other load bearing columns. This, however, does not explain the near instant nature of this cascade of failure - no resistance. Further still, the theory presupposes a wholly new kind of physics in which the downwards compressive force of a column is suddenly transferred to horizontal members and then down through other columns!

The theory was modeled and in that model, a similar fate occurred.

Another matter to repose on is the south elevation cantilevered floors; on page 44 of the pdf you linked, it shows that there was damage from WTC 1 to the floors. The pdf does not specify which floor but it is not important because serious damage to cantilevered floors would in fact reduce load transfer to the supporting girders, columns and reinforced concrete lift and stairwell cores.

I am interested in your background. I will pass this theory onto an architect and maybe he can give me some insight from his structural engineers on this.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

I appreciate the reply and explanation but I cannot help to believe that no matter the theory, if it doesn't fit your understanding, will never be "bought" by you.

Based on your assertion, any subsequent discussion would be a confrontation between belief systems and not facts. Accordingly, I see no profit in engaging with you. To do so would be an irrational act on my part in light of your above statement.


BTW, Column bulking calcs - critical loads, would be done during the design process only as an exercise to examine possibilities. To pass building code inspections/controls, they would have to use more complex methods. Structural engineers compensate for sudden loss of columns or members in their belts and braces calculations to cover their asses.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

You have a coherency problem dude. My response was in relation to the video you gave to 4hero. You subsequently commented to me with a link to a photo which I did not address. You also called me a "truther".

If you cannot keep up, I will no longer respond to you. Sorry

edit on 25-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)

I think I am likely to die of old age before I get a coherent reaction from you. I am not thedman. I gave you a link to this article in relation to cut steel at the WTC site. Any comment ?

www.sharpprintinginc.com...