911 Conspiracy?

[spongebob]

It's not possible. Even if they had plans showing where to place the charges to pull WTC7 prepared in advance, the act of actually rigging the building would require a very large team of experts at least a couple of days. Were there even any demolition teams in the area? Even if they were, the traffic situation in NY that afternoon was horrible. A demolition team of that size would have been hard to miss working in the mess at ground zero, yet no one saw a this going on.

If they really did pull WTC7 as Silverstein says, then it was rigged well in advance.

Earthquake monitoring stations recorded the seismic "quakes" created by the buildings falling. In a large structure that falls naturally, the graph shows a small magnitude event that starts low, has a medium duration, and then gradually falls to a flat line. Both of the towers and WTC7 show a pattern that begins with a large and very quick series of spikes, followed by a longer duration medium pattern and then gradually tapering off. The large initial spikes are the charges going off, they register stronger than the actual collapse. It is a documented phenomemon, a seismic "blueprint" of a controlled demolition. All three buildings showed this pattern, including the other buildings pulled later in December.


Edit: At least this is what Alex Jones says he has documented proof of. I wouldn't mind getting another source to verify the official seismic graphs.

timothy mcveigh collasped the AP murrah federal builing with a truck bomb park in front. the front of the building looked like a collaspe did it not? get past this concept of so called experts bringing buildings down.

the seismic patterns prove absolutely nothing. this is nowhere near any type of controlled study. the WTC was a very unique design. we dont know what seismic pattern it would make whether it was a controlled collapse or not. you have nothing for reference. very vague and assumptious arguement.

do you have any link to information regarding the seismic graphs of the WTC or any controlled collapse or any natural collapses?

 

[spongebob]

But one other interesting note, the recently declassified audio recordings of first responding NYC fire fighters to the 77-78th floor on the WTC (south or north?) said they needed 2 lines to put out the fires. They noted no extreme heat and casually observed they needed only two lines to put out the remaining 'pockets'. Hardly a three alarm fire that would seem to have the intensity to melt steel.

something i overlooked, there was no evidence found at the site the any steel "melted". the fire was not hot enough. maybe if the aluminum was actually burning(burns at around 4000degrees) it could have melted steel. but thats not what happened.

steel melting was not a factor, steel bulkleling was a factor. and steel will deflect at the projected temperatures of that fire(1200 to 1400 degrees).

when the steel bulkled, it pulled from the joise clips, causing failure of the entire floor.

 

[Burning_Inside]

can you name one building that has collapsed due to any destructive force that toppled over. that is how buildings collapse, in a downward motion, controlled or not. for a building to topple over it must exceed somewhere around 50% of its base size in lateral deflection in order to lose its center of gravity. in other words engineers do not design top-heavy buildings. the WTC would have had to be vertically moved 100ft to the side in odrder to topple over instead of collapsing. gravity pulls things downward.

It doesn;t topple but it doesnt crumble as perfect as it did either. there's math involved in being able to tell if a building is coming down in virtual freefall, meaning key explosive points were detonated, or if it's staggered, meaning structural damage in one area caused that area to crumble, then caused another area to become damaged, then crumble. This wouldn;t be as fast as a controlled freefall demo'. And i know i read or saw somewhere where someone stated many engineers agreed that it looked controlled because it came down so smooth and fast. I'm not going to even attempt to find it tho'.

 

[Burning_Inside]

something i overlooked, there was no evidence found at the site the any steel "melted". the fire was not hot enough. maybe if the aluminum was actually burning(burns at around 4000degrees) it could have melted steel. but thats not what happened.

steel melting was not a factor, steel bulkleling was a factor. and steel will deflect at the projected temperatures of that fire(1200 to 1400 degrees).

when the steel bulkled, it pulled from the joise clips, causing failure of the entire floor.

if I may::::

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm

Excerpt:

"We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media."

There goes your steel buckeling theory.

 

[spongebob]

It doesn;t topple but it doesnt crumble as perfect as it did either. there's math involved in being able to tell if a building is coming down in virtual freefall, meaning key explosive points were detonated, or if it's staggered, meaning structural damage in one area caused that area to crumble, then caused another area to become damaged, then crumble. This wouldn;t be as fast as a controlled freefall demo'. And i know i read or saw somewhere where someone stated many engineers agreed that it looked controlled because it came down so smooth and fast. I'm not going to even attempt to find it tho'.

how do you know how TWC collapses? its design was quite unique. but please explain how you summarized your "perfect crumble" theory. for the last time, the design, which is perimenter structural support only, allowed for the collapse in the manner it did. one floor falling on the next. a crumbling effect. each floor joise clip failing.

if it were a controlled free fall demo the charges would have started towards the bottom, at least thats the way ive always seen it.

yes, many engineers may have stated, "it looked controlled" , that doesnt equate to it was controlled.

but please present links to any engineer in the US that explicitely states it was a controlled collapse.

 

[spongebob]

if I may::::

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm

Excerpt:

"We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media."

There goes your steel buckeling theory.

an excerpt from the gaurdian, you have got to be kidding me. lol.

i can present dozens of links to reputable engineers(not lying media) that believe the fire was somewhere between 1200 to 1600 degree. jet fuel can burn as high as 1600 degrees. and noone is absolutely positive about how many floors contained the fuel.

for the last time. jet fuel and intial impact are just factors in the collapse. the structural design is the major factor. just becuase steel only loses half its strength at about 1200 degrees doesnt mean it does not deflect. for the last time, the joises(beams running horizontally for floor support) are connected to the only structural support of the building(the perimenter columns). theses connections were made with clips, the clips were weakened and failed due to a combonation of factors. 1. the deflection of the joises and columns pulling the joises from the columns thereby causing clip failure. 2. the heat of the fire(the clips were much more prone to failure than the joises and columns). 3. the intial impact.

its not my bulkeling theory. please read something more reliable and expertly knowledgable than the gaurdian. they are nutcases.

 

[Burning_Inside]

how do you know how TWC collapses? no you do apprently tho'its design was quite unique. but please explain how you summarized your "perfect crumble" theory. for the last time, the design, which is perimenter structural support only, allowed for the collapse in the manner it did. one floor falling on the next. a crumbling effect. each floor joise clip failing. it wouldnt fall as fast as it did bro. You trying to say each joint in that bulding gave out all at once? First off, a jet flying at the thing didn't cause an immediate crumble to the floors in the immediate vicinity, and I'm no rocket scientist, but I think of the jet didn;t cause the joints to immediately crack, the weight comparison of the floors falling down on each other wouldn;t cause them to immediately give out either. I mean it's as if everything gave out and vroom, right down, no interruptions. Common sense will tell you that if something damages the top of something, and it crumbles down on top of it, the force would have to be the likes of a meteor plowing down on it to not offer any give at all. Too smooth and you know it.

if it were a controlled free fall demo the charges would have started towards the bottom, at least thats the way ive always seen it. god forbid i mention this to you but there are witness reports of explosions at the base of the wtc buildings around the times of the hits. Don't know about explosions elsewhere in the building.

yes, many engineers may have stated, "it looked controlled" , that doesnt equate to it was controlled.

but please present links to any engineer in the US that explicitely states it was a controlled collapse.if you dare watch some videos on the subject or read around at infowars or sites liek that you will find them. However I'm sure since they are not printed int he new York post or USA Today, they can't be accounted for.

But yeah anyway, your buckle theory won't work according to the lenghty math equations done ont hat site, but I know I know, it wasn;t a controlled study, it wasn't printed in any respectable magazines or anything, so we must discount it.

 

[Burning_Inside]

an excerpt from the gaurdian, you have got to be kidding me. lol.

i can present dozens of links to reputable engineers(not lying media) that believe the fire was somewhere between 1200 to 1600 degree. jet fuel can burn as high as 1600 degrees. and noone is absolutely positive about how many floors contained the fuel.

for the last time. jet fuel and intial impact are just factors in the collapse. the structural design is the major factor. just becuase steel only loses half its strength at about 1200 degrees doesnt mean it does not deflect. for the last time, the joises(beams running horizontally for floor support) are connected to the only structural support of the building(the perimenter columns). theses connections were made with clips, the clips were weakened and failed due to a combonation of factors. 1. the deflection of the joises and columns. 2. the heat of the fire(the joises were much more prone to failure than the joises and columns). 3. the intial impact.

its not my bulkeling theory. please read something more reliable and expertly knowledgable than the gaurdian. they are nutcases.

Ok I was just rcacking jokes in my last post about you and your sources this and that, but obviously i was more on the money about you than I thought even in jest. You're ridiculous. Are you a lawyer by chance? You a christian? Just asking cause you do a damn fine job of discrediting anything unless its published by a certain person or institution, and correlates to your line of thinking. Do you take dieting/training advice from anyone on this site? If so, you;re nuts, I mean have they presented you with their doctorates degree in sports medicine or fat burning? lol. Just stop man, you're killing me.

 

[spongebob]

Originally Posted by spongebob
how do you know how TWC collapses? no you do apprently tho'. You trying to say each joint in that bulding gave out all at once? First off, a jet flying at the thing didn't cause an immediate crumble to the floors in the immediate vicinity, and I'm no rocket scientist, but I think of the jet didn;t cause the joints to immediately crack, the weight comparison of the floors falling down on each other wouldn;t cause them to immediately give out either. I mean it's as if everything gave out and vroom, right down, no interruptions. Common sense will tell you that if something damages the top of something, and it crumbles down on top of it, the force would have to be the likes of a meteor plowing down on it to not offer any give at all. Too smooth and you know it.

god forbid i mention this to you but there are witness reports of explosions at the base of the wtc buildings around the times of the hits. Don't know about explosions elsewhere in the building.

if you dare watch some videos on the subject or read around at infowars or sites liek that you will find them. However I'm sure since they are not printed int he new York post or USA Today, they can't be accounted for.

But yeah anyway, your buckle theory won't work according to the lenghty math equations done ont hat site, but I know I know, it wasn;t a controlled study, it wasn't printed in any respectable magazines or anything, so we must discount it.

no what im trying to tell you is that one or two floorsfailed after a combination of initial impact(damaging a section of joises, clips, and the perimenter structural columns) heat from jet fuel, and the deflection of steel.

and yes, once one or two floors failed, that is enough for the next floor to fail and the next and the next. the clips were not designed for what damaged they sustained from the fire and any extra weight thereafter. the building crumbles.

if there were reports of detonations at the time of the hit at the lower floors how come we saw no smoke or fire, how come second and third responders were still going up? and how come it took the buildings so long to collapse after thtose reported intial sounds? and not but not least why did we watch the building crumble from the top instead of from the bottom as in controlled collapse. controlled collapse damage buildings at the base of support do they not?

all i can say is i read what reputable engineers including the designers have written and saud about it.

 

[spongebob]

Ok I was just rcacking jokes in my last post about you and your sources this and that, but obviously i was more on the money about you than I thought even in jest. You're ridiculous. Are you a lawyer by chance? You a christian? Just asking cause you do a damn fine job of discrediting anything unless its published by a certain person or institution, and correlates to your line of thinking. Do you take dieting/training advice from anyone on this site? If so, you;re nuts, I mean have they presented you with their doctorates degree in sports medicine or fat burning? lol. Just stop man, you're killing me.

this may sound strange to you but people who have studied engineering or any subjuct for that matter tend to lend a little more credibility to thier opinion. im sorry i hurt your feelings about the gaurdian, but they are absolutely nuts and anti-american 100%.

im not sure what significance it would have if i were a christian, that doesnt change the physical sciences. and im not nuts for taking any advice from anyone on any matter, but i am taking risk if that person does not have some back ground in the matter. and i take those risk willing without reservation.

now get back to drinking.