WTC Collapses

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by scott3x, Nov 14, 2008.

?

How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

  1. Terrorist controlled aeroplanes crashing into them (like on the footage)

    18 vote(s)
    43.9%
  2. Remote controlled aeroplanes to manipulate a war on false grounds

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Demolitions charges rigged by the government to manipulate war

    9 vote(s)
    22.0%
  4. Allah!

    2 vote(s)
    4.9%
  5. People keep flogging a dead horse!

    12 vote(s)
    29.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. space_geek Registered Member

    Messages:
    19
    i think the planes were missiles and the plane that crashed in the field in penn was shot down by US air force.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. psikeyhackr Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,020
    You don't say?

    Really!

    I am surprised, shocked, astounded and really upset.

    I may never recover.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It does seem that there are people on the planet capable of comprehending the fundamentals of physics however:
    https://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/project-x/2008-April/018269.html

    #1 and #3 seem somewhat redundant to me but it is the thought that counts.

    I have never seen Steven Jones say anything like that. Doesn't he know something about physics?

    psik
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2009
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. psikeyhackr Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,020
    OK! Who voted for Allah without my permission?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    on what basis?

    don't patronize me psikey.

    in your opinion psikey how was all this concrete pulverized?
     
  8. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I know you asked psikey, but I couldn't resist, as my answer is only one word long:
    explosives.

    9/11 Research goes into great depth as to why the planes and ensuing fires simply couldn't have produced such results in its Concrete Pulverization article.
     
  9. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    In Steven Jones' article, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?, the beginning of his 7th reason for advancing the explosive-demolition hypothesis while challenging the “official” fire-caused collapse hypothesis starts with the following:

    7. The horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of feet and the pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, provides further evidence for the use of explosives — as well-explained in http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/index.html. (See also, Griffin, 2004, chapter 2.)​

    However, in terms of the issues you're describing, Jim Hoffman does a better job of that in his 9/11 Research site in the Concrete Pulverization article. Steven Jones actually links to some pages from Jim Hoffman's 9/11 Research site although I saw no link to that particular page.
     
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    and why wasn't any found in the rubble scott?
     
  11. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    The official investigation didn't analyze the debris for it. Steven Jones analyzed some debris, however, and found a thermate signature in it; he even chronicled it in his peer reviewed paper, Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method . There is evidence that publishing this paper is the reason that he was suspended from teaching in Bringham Univerity, apparently by a shadowy higher up that initially promised him some sweet grants if he'd just keep quiet. But he didn't and he was suspended.

    So NIST was asked if -they- analyzed the debris for thermite (thermate is a type of thermite). They fully admitted they didn't and gave lame reasons for not doing so.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2009
  12. psikeyhackr Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,020
    .
    I don't know anything about explosives. I know I don't know anything about explosives. I don't pretend to know anything about explosives.

    So I don't try to explain anything about explosives.

    But I know force has to be applied to mass to make it accelerate downward faster than gravity and that conservation of momentum would be involved in any top down gravitational collapse.

    So I am working on a video demonstrating a top down gravitational collapse.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYG9cdgwyqI

    That is only one of seven minutes. It is doing the sound track and editing from this point.

    But the falling mass must break toothpicks on the way down. If I put washers on the toothpicks then it must accelerate that mass in addition to breaking the wood. Without washers it breaks an average of 17.7 if I add mass it goes down to 8 or 6, usually 6. Toothpicks are not very high precision. So not knowing the distribution of mass on the WTC when it affects the collapse is totally unscientific.

    So the people that want to label this pseudoscience and talk this "woo woo" crap are full of shit. Their idea of science is just accepting some AUTHORITY they prefer to believe and choose to regard as scientific. They obviously don't have to UNDERSTAND things for themselves and equally obviously have NO SCIENTIFIC CURIOSITY.

    This is the nation that put men on the Moon! We have computers practically coming out of our ears! A problem this simple should have been explained years ago. If those planes could do it there should not be any unanswered questions. So why don't we have an official source telling us something as simple as the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers? It is like people can only comprehend positive explanations. They don't get the idea of eliminating a negative.

    psik
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2009
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    and once more not a single person that arrived on the scene after hearing "it almost looked like one of those controlled demolitions" thought about looking for any.

    so without any evidence to support the "bomb hypothesis" you are convinced it was explosives.
     
  14. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    I believe the concrete pulverization is erroneously blamed on explosives at times. While most of it was broken up, an analysis of the dust shows it was about 15% concrete. Most of the actual dust we see in the falls of the buildings is gypsum from wallboard, which was very abundant. So while the concrete was broken up into small chunks 80 to 85% of it wasn't actually pulverized into dust.

    It wouldn't necessarily take explosives to break up the concrete into smaller chunks and 15% of it to dust. The impulsive loading due to multiple collisions all the way down could have easily done it. However, the fact that the tremendous energy required to do this didn't slow the collapse should be a question.

    This also doesn't mean explosives would not have been used to take out key columns to ensure the collapses continued reliably. The fact that the collapses continued at relatively high speed in spite of huge energy drains, along with traces of thermate and iron microspheres being found in the dust and molten metal in the rubble, form the basis for suspecting controlled demolition.

    Leopold, it sounds naive to use a nobody saw any evidence for it argument as proof that explosives were not utilised. Just what do you think would be left over to see in an obvious visual way from radio controlled explosives?

    The statement that explosives weren't found is quite misleading since their possible use was not investigated and the steel was not analyzed for any residues of exotic accelerants, which is a requirement of NFPA 921. Conversely, over 99.5% of the steel from the towers was not saved for analysis and NONE from WTC 7. This destruction of evidence before any analysis took place should be a huge red flag to anyone with a clear mind.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2009
  15. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    well i guess unexpolded bombs still bolted onto the girders?

    what is so misleading about stating "unexploded bomb debris wasn't found in the rubble"?
    the facts of the matter are:
    1.it was stated on TV "it almost looks like one of those controlled demolitions"
    2. in the hours and days after the collapse people from all over the US arrived at ground zero.
    3. these people included structural engineers, firemen, policemen, reporters, and doctors.
    4. ground zero was not "roped off" by the military or any other agency during this time.
    5. the rescue and cleanup was civilian directed.
    6. no bomb debris was ever found in the pile.
    now tell me tony, what does the above facts suggest to you?
     
  16. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634

    First, I think it is a gigantic assumption that bombs would remain unexploded. I don't hear about legal demolitions having much of a problem with unexploded charges. They can't afford a lot of that in their business as a failed demolition is a very serious safety hazard. In addition, if a demolition was done covertly only the most reliable explosives would be used and redundancy employed.

    Second, on the low chance that some did not explode, the collisions of all of the rubble would have most likely have pulverised any explosive which did not detonate. They aren't like steel columns you know.

    Other than fully intact unexploded devices, which would have been extremely unlikely, what would you have been looking for in the rubble?
     
  17. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    assumption?
    isn't it an assumption that it was thermite that was seen coming out of one window of one floor in one corner?
    isn't it an assumption that radio controlled detonators was used?
    all 6 of my points are facts tony.
    also an assumption.

    most likely?
    why on earth would a government take that kind of chance.
    "let's plant bombs and hope they all detonate"
    and to top it off:
    "we'll even let professional civilians and nosy reporters crawl all over the pile"
    especially after hearing the phrase on TV.
    i have no idea, but you can bet that the cops and firemen that were there would know what to look for.
     
  18. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634

    I think you are making a huge assumption that there would have been unexploded charges and an even greater assumption that if they did that they would have been recognizable. What basis do you have for it?

    What basis do you have for believing cops and firemen would know what to look for? Usually these things need to be determined through lab testing, which curiously did not occur.

    Why wasn't at least the steel from the fire affected zones of the twin towers saved for test and analysis?
     
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    because this is part of a cops and firemens job, to ascertain the cause of accidents. to state these devices wouldn't be recognizable suggests a new method of making explosives which adds to the unreliability factor.

    which should tell you something tony.
    why test for something when nobody has found any evidence to test for it.

    wasn't this stuff analyzed at freshkills?

    don't forget that the debris was sifted like flour looking for body parts tony.
    if any type of bomb material was in the rubble they would have found it.
     
  20. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    It is naive to think that there would have been anything left over but residues, and cops and firemen can't determine the constituents of a residue on a piece of steel. This is a job for a lab and it is why the National Fire Protection Association code 921 calls for testing for exotic accelerants in any fire investigation. The fact that this was not done is a huge red flag that those supporting the present official explanation for the collapses are ignoring.

    Nothing more than visual examination of random pieces of steel was done at Freshkills. It was not a systematic analysis linking pieces of steel to one another to come up with a failure sequence and no testing was done there. To me it appears that it was simply window dressing to make it look like there was analysis being done.

    As for your contention that bomb parts would have been found in the sifting process, do you really think that large pieces of charges would have remained and that those doing the sifting would have known what to look for?
     
  21. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Excellent points. It's backed up by this article from Paul Conant, a former newspaperman who has written for the New York Times and other large dailies:
    9/11 probers skipped key forensic tests

    Even WTC 7 investigator Jonathan Barnett, who last I checked believes the official story, had this to say concerning his investigation:
    "We were surprised that the building [WTC7] collapsed, we being the team that investigated what occurred on that day. There was some damage to the Tower 7 caused by debris that hit it from Tower 1 but the damage was certainly not similar in scope or magnitude to that caused by the aircrafts hitting Towers 1 and 2. Normally when you have a structural failure you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item, photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is on the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of Tower 7".
    [Jonathan Barnett, PhD. Fire Protection Engineer charged with investigation of WTC7-collapse debris-field.]

    Here's a video of him saying it:
    Jonathan Barnett - forensic engineer for WTC7 collapse


    Exactly. There's also the fact that atleast 250 tons of the debris was stolen from the site, as reported by the Telegraph:
    250 tons of scrap stolen from ruins and most of the rest was shipped off to China to be melted down for recycling post haste.
     
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    it isn't at all naive to think cops and firemen would know what to look for.
    don't forget that there were many other professional civilians there too, possibly controlled demolition experts.
    and you seem to be ignoring that FIREMEN were at that pile, people that have solid experience at this kind of thing.
    i wasn't there so i have no idea but i'm positive they did more than "look at it".

    yes, i do.
    cutting charges are bolted onto the girder to prevent dislodging during the collapse. i know this to be true because i've seen videos on how charges are placed in a building to be demolished. the vidoe also demonstrated that wire cables are used to aid in the collapse. these cables run from the perimeter of the building to the cut member so that the building collapses as intended.
    who reported seeing these cables tony?

    publish in december 2008? hardly a first hand account.

    taken out of context.
    the video cuts off immediately after the word seven.
    what wasn't he able to do scott? pick up each piece and examine it?
    photograph extensively?
    look at each piece?
    look at each element?
    i have no idea what this has to do with explosives or even if it's true.
     
  23. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    That is because you dont know what you are talking about and have zero practical experience in investigating bombings and controlled demos. Just because you lack experience does not mean everyone does as well. At any controlled demo there is evidence left behind because it is impossible to hide.

    You, or any of the conspiracy theorists, do not have a sensible answer as to how the charges could have been set to facilitate a controlled demo without no one noticing the monumental task of setting hundreds\thousands of points where they would need to be or the impossibility of putting them there unnoticed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page