|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
 Posted - 03/11/2009 : 05:00:03
|
Here's the news article:
The document, which the newspaper said may be released publicly on Tuesday, describes the five men as the "9/11 Shura Council," and says their actions were an offering to God, according to excerpts of the document read to a reporter by an unidentified government official, the report said.
"'To us,' the official read, 'they are not accusations. To us they are a badge of honor, which we carry with honor,'" the paper said. |
It doesn't sound as if it was tortured out of them, does it? Where any of those guys among those who were tortured I wonder? Will this turn out to be true?
Nevertheless, investigation needs to be done.
Of course, you can imagine how the Rapture Ready crowd paints this.
Fortunately, there is one voice of reason there:
| Obama said that he is going to release these five? |
Exactly. Where is there any indication that those guys or any other who was guilty of crimes would be released? If anything, those guys would all get trials to weed out those who actually are guilty.
| President-elect Obama's advisers are crafting plans to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and prosecute terrorism suspects in the U.S., a plan the Bush administration said Monday was easier said than done. Under the plan being crafted inside Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and others would be charged in U.S. courts, where they would receive constitutional rights and open trials. |
Doesn't quite match up with the RR people's ranting, does it?
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
Edited by - the_ignored on 03/11/2009 05:00:46
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
 Posted - 03/11/2009 : 05:36:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored
Doesn't quite match up with the RR people's ranting, does it?
|
Nothing ever could. |
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2009 : 17:13:05 [Permalink]
|
I just wonder how the "9/11 Truth" people manage to fit these admissions into their mythology that the attacks were an "inside job."
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Atheria
New Member
USA
18 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2009 : 22:03:19 [Permalink]
|
If you're wondering we won't.
Until and unless they can prove they had inside knowledge of the plans, I will stick will the science and logic. it's not physically possible for those towers to have fallen that way.
Good luck proving with physics that they could have.
~Atheria |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2009 : 22:29:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Atheria
If you're wondering we won't.
Until and unless they can prove they had inside knowledge of the plans, I will stick will the science and logic. it's not physically possible for those towers to have fallen that way.
Good luck proving with physics that they could have.
~Atheria
|
Sigh. Good luck making up physics that works for the "controlled demolition" scenario.
Now, since you say you are a "we" (a "Truther") how do you explain the Al Qaeda admissions? Matter of fact, how do you explain the collisions by two passenger aircraft into the Towers, and the fires erupting exactly where they hit?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/15/2009 00:38:13 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2009 : 23:50:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Atheria
it's not physically possible for those towers to have fallen that way. |
Prove it.
Of course, I'm sure you really meant to say, "It's not possible for the towers to have fallen that way just from damage from the airplanes crashing into them."
Obviously, whether from airplanes or explosives or whatever, they did fall "that way," so it must have been physically possible.
If it were truly "physically impossible," then they would have fallen some other way than they did, regardless of what caused them to fall.
Unless, of course, you're implying that the footage we have of them falling is all fake, like wire-work in a Kung Fu movie. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2009 : 14:38:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Atheria
If you're wondering we won't.
Until and unless they can prove they had inside knowledge of the plans, I will stick will the science and logic. it's not physically possible for those towers to have fallen that way.
Good luck proving with physics that they could have.
~Atheria
|
I see we have a demolitions expert with engineering training in our midst. Where did you get your degrees?
@
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Atheria
New Member
USA
18 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2009 : 15:20:12 [Permalink]
|
Sorry Dave should have been more specific. It was a knee jerk reaction and not well phrased.
No I watched at the age of ten in my living room, scared to death b/c my aunt was supposed to be in there that day. She wasn't thank god...
What I mean is yes the planes hit the towers, however the temperatures required to seriously deform the steel could not and was not reached inside the tower. The planes provided a good cover for the real operation.
It's alot to explain here but I'll hit some interesting points:
The buildings pancaked and fell apart at near free fall( the velocity that an object falls through air) look at a video again if you need to and count the seconds from the start of the collapse to the end. The towers were 110 stories each, and they fell in approximately 10 secs.
This may not seem like an important fact, however, why would a building made of concrete and steel collapse in on itself at the same rate as an object would fall through air? The time for an uninhibited pancake collapse for a building that size, in which each floor gave way immediately to the floors above it, is 110+ seconds. So how would the towers have achieved such a quick pancake? 
A pancake at that speed is easily achieved IF the floors below gave NO resistance, IF they were already primed to fall. That fact contradicts the way buildings were built. However, priming a building to fall is what demolitions do. Most demolitions are over in seconds, just as the collapse of the towers were. 
A Second point:
Jets of all sizes burn kerosene. Efficient and relatively light, it makes a great jet fuel. Kerosene in a "dirty burn" one with an uncontrolled injection of oxygen and with temperature lowering particulates, such as small pieces of paper or cloth, burns at ~ 800 C depending on the impurities. Steel melts at ~ 1300 C depending on the grade. So how then were the tower's steel significantly deformed.
The official story was that the steel girders around the core of the twin towers were heated to the point of critical deformation, cause the floor where the steel buckled to fail and all of the subsequent floors to collapse. However, in this scenario, the core of the twin towers, made of steel as well, stays standing.
In reality, ALL of the towers, including the cores, collapsed, yet the official story does not explain this.
Another point,
There was molten Steel AND iron found at the site of both collapsed towers. If the fires did not burn hot enough to melt the steel, as the official story itself says, then why is there molten steel and more importantly iron?
Finally I'll leave with this point:
There are eye witness accounts of not only molten iron POURING out of the towers, but of explosions in the basement of both towers, 100+ stories below the actual plane crashes. What would cause those explosions in both towers, and why was there large amounts of molten iron mixed with sulfur pouring from both towers?
The answer to the first question is simple if you consider the base of the building being primed for structural instability. The second deals with thermite/thermate. Something I'd be happy to address in another post as well as other information, if others are interested.(this post is already long winded.  )
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2009 : 15:48:43 [Permalink]
|
And the checklist of already-refuted assertions of fact begins...Originally posted by Atheria
What I mean is yes the planes hit the towers, however the temperatures required to seriously deform the steel could not and was not reached inside the tower. |
You're simply denying the mechanism of failure documented by the NTSB and using weasel words like "seriously deform" which have no quantifiability.| The planes provided a good cover for the real operation. |
Do tell.| The buildings pancaked and fell apart at near free fall( the velocity that an object falls through air) look at a video again if you need to and count the seconds from the start of the collapse to the end. The towers were 110 stories each, and they fell in approximately 10 secs. |
Yes, they were mostly air.| This may not seem like an important fact, however, why would a building made of concrete and steel collapse in on itself at the same rate as an object would fall through air? The time for an uninhibited pancake collapse for a building that size, in which each floor gave way immediately to the floors above it, is 110+ seconds. So how would the towers have achieved such a quick pancake? |
Think yourself. Where are your calculations of 110+ seconds? What assumptions were you using? Did you calculate it based upon the way the building was actually built, or did you assume (wrongly) that each floor supported the floors above it?| A pancake at that speed is easily achieved IF the floors below gave NO resistance, IF they were already primed to fall. |
And that's the way the building was built.| That fact contradicts the way buildings were built. |
No, it doesn't. The floors were hung from the walls. Why would they provide resistance?| However, priming a building to fall is what demolitions do. Most demolitions are over in seconds, just as the collapse of the towers were. |
Argument by analogy fail.A Second point:
Jets of all sizes burn kerosene. Efficient and relatively light, it makes a great jet fuel. Kerosene in a "dirty burn" one with an uncontrolled injection of oxygen and with temperature lowering particulates, such as small pieces of paper or cloth, burns at ~ 800 C depending on the impurities. Steel melts at ~ 1300 C depending on the grade. So how then were the tower's steel significantly deformed. |
The steel didn't need to melt, only to soften. The weight of the floors did the rest.| The official story was that the steel girders around the core of the twin towers were heated to the point of critical deformation, cause the floor where the steel buckled to fail and all of the subsequent floors to collapse. However, in this scenario, the core of the twin towers, made of steel as well, stays standing. |
And one did for some time.| In reality, ALL of the towers, including the cores, collapsed, yet the official story does not explain this. |
Think yourself, and watch the videos again. The core of one only collapses after the rest of the structure was down.Another point,
There was molten Steel AND iron found at the site of both collapsed towers. If the fires did not burn hot enough to melt the steel, as the official story itself says, then why is there molten steel and more importantly iron? |
Different fires, different fuel. There was a whole city's worth of infrastructure that was demolished by the fall of the towers.| There are eye witness accounts of not only molten iron POURING out of the towers... |
I'd like to know how an eyewitness sampled molten whatever-it-was and determined that it was iron.| ...but of explosions in the basement of both towers, 100+ stories below the actual plane crashes. What would cause those explosions in both towers... |
First I've ever heard of witnesses reporting explosions "in the basement of both towers." Got a reference for that one?| ...and why was there large amounts of molten iron mixed with sulfur pouring from both towers? |
Now the witness has also identified sulfur mixed in with the alleged iron? Holy cow!| The answer to the first question is simple if you consider the base of the building being primed for structural instability. |
As the saying goes, for every complex question there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong.| The second deals with thermite/thermate. |
I don't think I can roll my eyes enough.| Something I'd be happy to address in another post as well as other information, if others are interested.(this post is already long winded. ) |
Oh, I think we're just getting started, thanks.
We have been over (and over, and over) this a lot before, though. Back in May, 2007, another forum attempted a "Total Truth Takeover" of the SFN, and failed miserably. The threads are all linked in this issue of the Summary, under the sub-heading "Special Mention." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Atheria
New Member
USA
18 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2009 : 16:55:46 [Permalink]
|
Glad to have a taker in you Dave :) *cracks knuckles*
Alright,
| You're simply denying the mechanism of failure documented by the NTSB and using weasel words like "seriously deform" which have no quantifiability. |
Point taken I will be more specific:
All building are mostly air. The towers are no exception. If you think about it even your house is mostly air(and rightly so b/c you want the largest amount of enclosed used space.) Therefore saying the towers are mostly air DOES NOT debunk the physics. The calculations used take this into account. Secondly, anything ejected from the top of the tower would take about 10 secs to fall through air, but if an object had to first travel through solid objects beneath it that would slow the collapse even just b/c the solid object wouldn't allow the falling one to crush it immediately, extreme weight or not. Over the length of the floors such a delay would cause an increase in length of time to the 96+ seconds postulated. ( I looked up the actual calculations to be sure, I overstated my fault. However, this is still longer than it took for the towers to collapse.)
I am well aware of the construction of the towers. That fact is another reason for my wariness of the official story. The towers were supported by a central column of steel in the shape of a square. The outer steel walls were connected to the center square, or core, by steel connecting girders. It is these girders that the official story says failed under the deformation of the fire. Might I ask a question pertaining to this? Do you live in the north Dave?
| And that's the way the building was built. |
You're assuming the towers were built to fall in on their imprint in the case of damage that could cause collapse.  I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. No building is built that way. It would be structurally unstable to begin with, and fall without any assistance. If anything came and gave it even the slightest shake it would fall. The towers were built to withstand hurricane force winds(140 mph). My own aunt has felt the building sway and shake in those high winds, and yet you would have me to believe they were made in a way that they would just fall in their imprint? More importantly, the towers were built with plane collision in mind, b/c of the 1945 empire state collision.
I accept the analogy fail. Good point.
You have said that tower one's core stood for sometime. What of tower two? How can you explain it's absence? As for tower one why did it collapse at all? If it was standing why did it collapse later? It should have still been standing, per the official story, but yet fell with no apparent cause.
Could you explain different fires different fuels to me Dave? I am uncertain as to what you are referring.
As for the molten iron sampling, forgive me I was imprecise. A scientist named Steven Jones was able to collect a sample from ground zero to take back to test. He determine the molten substance coming out of the towers was iron with sulfur mixed in. Such a mixture of sulfur and iron is called thermite.
Here's a video clip from the tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv2ck2qsiGA&feature=related
In it you can clearly see molten metal, later identified as iron with sulfur in it, pouring out of one of the towers minutes before it's collapse. This was the eye witness account I was referring to when I said folks saw stuff pouring out of the tower. As for the eye witness accounts of explosions, if you don't mind the 9-11 truth website,
http://www.911weknow.com/911-mysteries-english
I believe it's in the section of the video at the very and of the first part 26 min. onward. and the beginning of the second part.
These are eye witness accounts of explosions in the basement before the plane hits the tower. What are those explosions?
Could we argue these points before i add any more Dave?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2009 : 17:33:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Atheria
Glad to have a taker in you Dave :) *cracks knuckles* |
En garde.| All building are mostly air. The towers are no exception. If you think about it even your house is mostly air(and rightly so b/c you want the largest amount of enclosed used space.) Therefore saying the towers are mostly air DOES NOT debunk the physics. The calculations used take this into account. Secondly, anything ejected from the top of the tower would take about 10 secs to fall through air, but if an object had to first travel through solid objects beneath it that would slow the collapse even just b/c the solid object wouldn't allow the falling one to crush it immediately, extreme weight or not. Over the length of the floors such a delay would cause an increase in length of time to the 96+ seconds postulated. ( I looked up the actual calculations to be sure, I overstated my fault. However, this is still longer than it took for the towers to collapse.) |
Yes. In no case did any part of the building need to travel through any other part of the building. The floors were only strong enough to support themselves and a little more than their expected live and dead loads (people, furniture, etc.). Each floor could maybe support the weight of two more floor structures resting gently on top of it, with the walls perfectly intact, but that's not what happened here. As soon as the walls buckled, the resistance they offered to collapse was nearly zero.| I am well aware of the construction of the towers. That fact is another reason for my wariness of the official story. The towers were supported by a central column of steel in the shape of a square. |
Rectangle.| The outer steel walls were connected to the center square, or core, by steel connecting girders. It is these girders that the official story says failed under the deformation of the fire. |
They were trusses, not girders. Your familiarity with the construction of the building seems to be rather low, actually.| Might I ask a question pertaining to this? Do you live in the north Dave? |
I live in Virginia, but what does that matter?| You're assuming the towers were built to fall in on their imprint in the case of damage that could cause collapse. I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. No building is built that way. It would be structurally unstable to begin with, and fall without any assistance. If anything came and gave it even the slightest shake it would fall. The towers were built to withstand hurricane force winds(140 mph). My own aunt has felt the building sway and shake in those high winds, and yet you would have me to believe they were made in a way that they would just fall in their imprint? More importantly, the towers were built with plane collision in mind, b/c of the 1945 empire state collision. |
You are making little sense, here. There was little lateral stress on the structure at the time of failure. The design performed very well at the time of the initial collisions, but that stress was gone at the time of failure. Neither tower (nor building 7) fell into its own "imprint." That's just a casual falsehood that gets tossed around. Anyone looking at the overhead photos taken in the hours or days following the event can plainly see large pieces of building all over the place.| You have said that tower one's core stood for sometime. What of tower two? How can you explain it's absence? As for tower one why did it collapse at all? If it was standing why did it collapse later? It should have still been standing, per the official story, but yet fell with no apparent cause. |
"With no apparent cause" is just ridiculous. Thousands of tons of concrete and steel had just crashed down around the core. The core was never designed to survive the collapse of the rest of the building. To think it should have survived despite all the building parts crashing into it on their way down is ridiculous. There's plenty of apparent cause for the cores' collapses.| Could you explain different fires different fuels to me Dave? I am uncertain as to what you are referring. |
There are plenty of gas lines under Manhattan. How hot does a natural or LP gas fire get?As for the molten iron sampling, forgive me I was imprecise. A scientist named Steven Jones was able to collect a sample from ground zero to take back to test. He determine the molten substance coming out of the towers was iron with sulfur mixed in. Such a mixture of sulfur and iron is called thermite.
Here's a video clip from the tube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv2ck2qsiGA&feature=related
In it you can clearly see molten metal, later identified as iron with sulfur in it, pouring out of one of the towers minutes before it's collapse. This was the eye witness account I was referring to when I said folks saw stuff pouring out of the tower. |
Yeah, I'm supposed to believe that from within all the rubble, hours or days later, Steve Jones was able to get a sample of something which was seen to fall from hundreds of feet in the air "minutes before" the tower's collapse? I can't even tell you how far that stretches credulity.As for the eye witness accounts of explosions, if you don't mind the 9-11 truth website,
http://www.911weknow.com/911-mysteries-english
I believe it's in the section of the video at the very and of the first part 26 min. onward. and the beginning of the second part. |
I'm not going to go hunting for it. Either find a direct link or a transcript, please.| These are eye witness accounts of explosions in the basement before the plane hits the tower. What are those explosions? |
I don't even know that the explosions actually occured. From the videos I've seen from inside the towers, people are concerned about the airplanes, and nobody mentions anything about explosions before the planes hit.
Besides, if the towers fell because of damage in the basement, they should have fallen as one big piece. They instead fell from the top down, as one would expect from the damage that occurred.| Could we argue these points before i add any more Dave? |
Sure. Just don't forget to let me in on what "the real operation" was. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Atheria
New Member
USA
18 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2009 : 19:22:45 [Permalink]
|
Rectangle...trusses. *sigh* What I was trying to convey was they general outline of the building with the rectangle/square in the middle, the steel walls on the outside, and the support trusses/girders imbtw. I don't know the terminology, but I know the idea I'm trying to convey, work with me here.
No they did not literally travel through each floor, but they land ontop of the other floors making it's undamaged trusses break as fast as if the floors had incountered no solid objects, that is the point I'm trying to make.
| I live in Virginia, but what does that matter? |
As for Virginia, you live somewhere where it is cold in the winter(unlike FL where I live) so the point I'm going to make next would be easier to understand if you owned a furnace. Is your furnace not made of steel? You can check if you like, but steel furnaces also burn kerosene. They (the furnaces) burn fuel in a controlled burn fashion allowing the temperature within to reach ~ 1100 C still not warp steel, or your furnace wouldn't work. So how did the fires that burned for a few minutes at a generous max of 800 C warp the steel enough to cause deformation.
| You are making little sense, here. There was little lateral stress on the structure at the time of failure. |
Exactly. The way the building was designed it could take both lateral and vertical stresses. After the initial impact there were little to no lateral stresses only vertical. This is the stress, the weight of the building, this is what the official story said was enough to cause the pancake collapse. I am asserting that if the building was built to withstand both vertical stresses(it weight) and lateral stresses(the winds) at the time of it's construction, why was it not able to do so in a few minutes of fire followed by the smoldering of ~ an hour before falling?
As for falling on it's footprint, if the building has a structural problem it will tend to break along that line and fall AWAY from the rest of the building. Just think of a piece of ice breaking away from a glacier for the visual reference. Tower Two did that initially, but the top piece suddenly dissinigrated into dust before it hit the ground. Why? The First tower did not do this, nether did the rest of tower two. They fell onto the area directly beneath themselves. Yes pieces of the towers were imbedded in other buildings but that's not the same thing as a piece of concrete or steel falling off a building and into the top another close building. Large steel chunks, 600,000 pounds, were deeply imbedding into the sides of other standing buildings. Not the top where they would have fallen, but the side where they would have to be nearly laterally ejected from the towers.
| Thousands of tons of concrete and steel had just crashed down around the core. The core was never designed to survive the collapse of the rest of the building. |
Dave you're making my point about the cores not surviving. If they can not be expected to survive, then WHY does the official report require and say that they do? As for the building falling on top of the cores, you are wrong there. The cores were filled with air and empty. The floors themselves did extend into the core. The floors fell around them like the official stories says, which means they should survive but don't . Now can you answer why don't they survive?
| There are plenty of gas lines under Manhattan. How hot does a natural or LP gas fire get? |
Natural or LP gas burns as hot as kerosene, howev |
| Edited by - Atheria on 03/15/2009 19:24:54 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2009 : 20:12:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Atheria
Rectangle...trusses. *sigh* What I was trying to convey was they general outline of the building with the rectangle/square in the middle, the steel walls on the outside, and the support trusses/girders imbtw. I don't know the terminology, but I know the idea I'm trying to convey, work with me here. |
Sorry, you're saying that the science is wrong, so you should be familiar with the precise terms.| No they did not literally travel through each floor, but they land ontop of the other floors making it's undamaged trusses break as fast as if the floors had incountered no solid objects, that is the point I'm trying to make. |
The floors lacked support once the outside upright girders had lost their integrity. How much resistance should they have put up, individually? Who came up with the one-second-per-floor value, and why do you believe it?| As for Virginia, you live somewhere where it is cold in the winter(unlike FL where I live) so the point I'm going to make next would be easier to understand if you owned a furnace. Is your furnace not made of steel? You can check if you like, but steel furnaces also burn kerosene. They (the furnaces) burn fuel in a controlled burn fashion allowing the temperature within to reach ~ 1100 C still not warp steel, or your furnace wouldn't work. So how did the fires that burned for a few minutes at a generous max of 800 C warp the steel enough to cause deformation. |
So you're saying that the airplane fires were a controlled burn inside a box which was designed to contain such a fire, and that that design was unaffected by the planes crashing through the building?
And you're still using terms like "warp steel," which is not what happened.| Exactly. The way the building was designed it could take both lateral and vertical stresses. After the initial impact there were little to no lateral stresses only vertical. This is the stress, the weight of the building, this is what the official story said was enough to cause the pancake collapse. I am asserting that if the building was built to withstand both vertical stresses(it weight) and lateral stresses(the winds) at the time of it's construction, why was it not able to do so in a few minutes of fire followed by the smoldering of ~ an hour before falling? |
How much more of an explanation than the official NTSB report do you want? The general rundown is that the fire protection wasn't all that it could have been; an airplane crashing into the building made the fire protection less able to do its job; the fires burned hot enough and long enough to make the floor system unable to maintain rigidity; the floor system on several floors began to sag; the sagging floors pulled inward on the outer I-beams, deforming them (most where the 60' trusses were); when the deformations became large enough, the outer wall on that side failed; the hat truss attempted to shift the load to other walls, but one was mostly missing; the other walls weren't able to take the load, and so they also failed.| As for falling on it's footprint, if the building has a structural problem it will tend to break along that line and fall AWAY from the rest of the building. |
The whole building failed.
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2009 : 21:45:31 [Permalink]
|
| Geez! You kids. It's obvious the towers are really still there, just phase shifted by [deep resonant voice]quantum mechanics.[/deep resonant voice] The "9/11 Shura Council" are Greys controlled by Elvis's brain in a glass jar kept in Area 51 using the powers of their minds to make us all think the towers are not there anymore. You'd know this if you used your Ouija board properly. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2009 : 22:09:12 [Permalink]
|
If 9/11 was an "inside job," why bother to fly planes into the targets? If you're already doing a controlled demolition, why not simply make it appear that was done by terrorists?
On another tack, what happened to the explosives hidden in the target of the plane that was crashed by passengers in Pennsylvania? Did the demolition team have to suddenly go to Plan B and run into the Capitol Building to rip out the explosives?
Any way they're presented, the "9/11 Truth" tales would be laughable with their complexities and implications. Laughable, if not for the paranoia involved, and the profound insult to the thousands of victims. (To say nothing of the frothing anti-Semitism inherent in many versions.)
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/15/2009 23:49:59 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2009 : 22:12:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
If 9/11 was an "inside job," why bother to fly planes into the targets? If you're already doing a controlled demolition, why not simply make it appear that was done by terrorists? |
We don't know what "the real operation" was, yet. Don't be hasty. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Guantanamo detainees say they planned Sept. 11
