user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
I think it should be United Steelworkers not untied - sorry bout that - my typing sucks if I rush.
Voted : Wait! Let me Google this and then copy and paste a really, really long article about it! (see shit)
Why where you rushing?
EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when steel & concrete buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.
Can you cite a single exception to this?
With a photo
It's interesting that wideheadofknowledge liked to make a big list, but couldn't cite any quote and links to back his claims about what those groups actual opinions are.
National Institute of Standards and Technology
- doesn't work. They couldn't simulate the collapses.
FEMA
- was caught out LYING (on many points) about the structure of the WTC buildings.
FDNY - they don't say what you claim that they say, wideheadofknowledge. In fact they claim the OPPOSITE.
NYC firefighter “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.”
Member of the FDNY:
"We were trying to get some of the people out, but then there was secondary explosions and then subsequent collapses."
Firefighter:
"As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway, there was a heavy duty explosion."
fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out ..
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ...
fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin'
Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem. "We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building...."
NBC Reporter, Pat Dawson:
(Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department) received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building.“
CHIEF STEVE GRABHER-FDNY WTC2 "poof,poof, windows pop out, explosion" Just as I go out of the building, one of my men says hey Captain, the building is coming down. I looked over my shoulder and you could see the whole top of south tower leaning towards us. It looked like coming over. You could see the windows pop out just like in the picture, looked like a movie. I saw one floor of windows pop out, like poof, poof. I saw one and a half floors pop out. It looked almost like an explosion. The whole top was teetering, and I really thought just the top of the building was falling off. I didn't think there was any way we were going to make it out because just being this close, it looked like it's leaning right on top of us. So we ran. It wasn't that far. I guess You could see over the top of the building from where we were standing, the whole building was coming on top of us this other building. At this time I thought just the top of the building fell down. I really wasn't sure that the whole tower was going to come down. It turns out I was looking at the Vista, what was left of the Vista, and, of course, the tower on the street.
FIREFIGHTER RICHARD BOERI WTC2 explosion before collapse
"We had our backs to the tower and under that pedestrian bridge walking south, myself, Eddie Kennedy and the officer, when you heard the crackling. You looked up and you saw the one floor explode on itself and the top start to slide."
FIREFIGHTER DEAN COUTSOUROS FILE No. 9110049
WTC2, crackling sound, like a million firecrackers
"I was directly in the middle of the street on Washington Street and there were three guys behind me and I was right in the middle of the street and that’s when the tower started to come down. I happened to be looking up at it and from the fire floor down it was just really loud crackling noise. It sounded like a million firecrackers and just wave right from the fire floor down. Just wave that started to come down."
FIREFIGHTER WILLIAM REYNOLDS
WTC2- large explosion below plane impact area before the collapse
"After a while, I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction, then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down in a pancake. I remember my jaw dropping and just staring at it and Richard Banaciski, one of the firemen that was there, yelled "Run" and I turned and I started running into the parking garage of the Financial Center."
Q. Bill, just one question. The fire that you saw, where was the fire? Like up at the upper levels where it started collapsing?
A. It appeared somewhere below that. Maybe twenty floors below the impact area of the plane. I saw it as fire and when I looked at it on television afterwards, it doesn't appear to show the fire. It shows a rush of smoke coming out below the area of the plane impact.
The reason why I think the cameras didn't get that image is because they were a far distance away and maybe I saw the bottom side where the plane was and the smoke was up above it.
FIREFIGHTER TIMOTHY BURKE WTC2 FILE NO 9110488
WTC2 Explosion before collapse
Then the building popped lower than the fire level which I guess was the aviation fuel fell into the pit and whatever floor it fell on heated up really bad and that’s why it popped at that floor. That’s the rumor I heard, but it seemed like Oh My God There is secondary device that the way the building popped I thought it was an explosion. When that happened they all started fading into the garage- masses of people. I’m thinking this building is coming down. So with the amount of people rushing me, we ran through the garage. We kept running through. All of a sudden the noises stopped , the sound of the building falling stopped. We all turned around and it was dark now. We really couldn’t see.
FIREFIGHTER KEVIN DUGGAN WTC2
we just heard this real loud roar. We looked up and we could see the south tower. Looked like the middle of it was just exploding out, and at that point, one of the officers just said, "Run," and we were just turned and started running into the garage.
FIREFIGHTER CHRISTOPHER FENYO FDNY WTC2
explosions before collapse . About a couple minutes after George came back to me is when the south tower from our perspective exploded from about midway up the building. We all turned and ran into the garage. At that point a debate began to rage because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges.
FIREFIGHTER HOWIE SCOTT
WTC2
We just made our turn to go in towards the lobby of tower two.
For whatever reason, I just happened to look up and saw the whole thing coming down, pancaking down, and the explosion, blowing out about halfway up. I remember looking back and noticing that big mushroom cloud just roaring at us like a freight train.
I have HUNDREDS MORE WITNESSES TO CITE.
Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering magazine, noticed a strange difference between the WTC investigation and other major fire investigations in New York City’s history. Manning wrote "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire? That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center."
In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer.' -- NY Times
"I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling" -- Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer; fire protection engineering department, University of Maryland and WTC collapse probe member quoted in NY Times (December 25, 2001)
'A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers"- Burning Jet Fuel 'NOT ENOUGH' to Have Crumbled WTC: Investigators//NYDailyNews
wideheadofknowledge, I want to see you cite quotes and links to back your claims about what those groups actual opinions are. ALL OF THEM. Not just NIST and FEMA. It to me that you just used the names of many groups as "filler" without any credibilitiy at all!
also, you haven't brought up anything new.
Ballot 93275 has already dealt with the same list and torn it to pieces.
Wise, it is simple. What you have are cut and paste engineers and scientists. People that could pass engineering 101 or even high school science or physics (even if someone gave them the answers). They don't know the most basic rules about research, verifying the information they find, about considering alternative points of view, how to discern propaganda from legitimate science, and the MOST BASIC RULES OF LOGIC.
They will go into conniptions over this comment, but I'll remind people that many of these cut and paste spammers are the same ones who have directly cut and pasted crap from neo-Nazi websites on the Holocaust ballots. Pointing that out doesn't stop them, it appears to encourage them. Just like on any 9/11 ballot. Their intent isn't debate. It is to spam the site with propaganda. Not that the don't have any ulterior motives...
"I have HUNDREDS MORE WITNESSES TO CITE."
BWAHAHAHA
I can literally paste the sites that "lovely"nice got these quotes from. All but one or two are found ONLY on the conspiracy sites. Of course, what is neglected is firefighter testimony from legitimate sites like firehouse magazine which published extensive reports and testimony from the firefighters on the scene. Firehouse is sort of the trade magazine for fighters.
You must remember that all of the organizations you named are all in on the conspiracy even though they have no reason whatsoever to do so.
{BWAHAHAHA
by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Fri Aug 25, 06 6:46am}
You already know that I can cite HUNDREDS OF WITNESSES, so why are you pretending that I can't?
{Of course, what is neglected is firefighter testimony from legitimate sites like firehouse magazine Fri Aug 25, 06 6:46am}
BZZZT! WRONG!
I can cite witness reports from them too. And have, ALREADY.
{You must remember that all of the organizations you named are all...by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Fri Aug 25, 06 6:46am}
Are you really wideheadofknowledge or are you trying to cover for him, and pretend that I didn't ask the following;
I want to see you cite quotes and links to back your claims about what those groups actual opinions are. ALL OF THEM. Not just NIST and FEMA. It to me that you just used the names of many groups as "filler" without any credibilitiy at all!
STRUCTURAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERS;
"If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because they cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's exactly what it looked like and that's what happened"
- Matthys Levy, Structural Engineer and co author of Why buildings Fall Down
Professor Shi Yongjiu, director of civil engineering department of Qinghua University and an expert on steel structure, guesses that the lower part of the WTC twin towers may got seriously damaged. According to steel structure's mechanical nature, the towers shouldn't collapse as late as an hour later after the planes slammed into. What's more, it should be in a way to topple over gradually instead of crashing down as seen in videotapes. It looks more like a directional blast in doing the job of destruction, so he feels that huge damages must have been done at the lower part of the towers.
Just google Elizabeth Loftus and eyewitness (I know you are good at this) to see how unreliable witness testimony can be.
I want to see you cite quotes and links to back your claims about what those groups actual opinions are. ALL OF THEM. Not just NIST and FEMA. It to me that you just used the names of many groups as "filler" without any credibilitiy at all!
Top of the list; American Concrete Institute
Explain what the hell they would know about controlled demolitions in steel-framed buildings?
Are you saying that since there are no records of jet-fuel-laden aircraft flying into tall buildings for comparison,,,,,,?
{how unreliable witness testimony can be.
by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Fri Aug 25, 06 7:25am}
I already know, but unlike the Pentagon with it's INVISIBLE PLANE which nobody can show any video of, the witnesses at the WTC buildings to the explosions and controlled demolitions are backed by other evidence; they're supported by video evidence showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions.
{jet-fuel-laden aircraft flying into tall buildings for comparison?
by Black_Lava on Fri Aug 25, 06 8:09am}
WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane. There was no inferno in the Twin Towers, and they were DESIGNED to cope with multiple plane impacts.
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain MULTIPLE IMPACTS OF JETLINERS because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting"
They were made strong enough to handle hurricane force winds, and survive the direct impact of a fully loaded, fully fueled Boeing 707, which is close to a 767/757 in weight and speed.
This is what the architectural firm stated
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ..
The buildings were also a lot stronger towards the base by necessity, and many structural engineers were STUNNED by the catastrophic collapses happening as they did because the resistance and strength of the building becomes greater the lower down you go. Also, with all the random damage being blamed (fire, and impact), that the buildings went straight down into their own footprint - and did three times in a row - that's like seeing an event beyond the miraculous. Asymmetric structural damage seems is extraordinarily unlikely to create a symmetric collapse.
Demolition experts would be out of business is such things happened normally.
Those buildings were not vertical pillars of water or houses built of cards.
Here is how they were constructed and how massive the central cores were;
youtube. com / watch ? v = otoh2pJpgY8
youtube. com / watch ? v = M - yuQeeYkq8
and this how they came down - watch the disappearing central cores and supports;
youtube. com / watch ? v = rKxoC4_T - GA
Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.
GAG ORDERS ON THE FDNY AND NYPD
QUOTE=
NEW YORK CITY, N.Y.—On the morning of Sept. 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac Jr. asserted, yet again, that 9-11 was an inside job. “I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it’s an inside job; and the firemen know it too,” said Isaac.
....
Also, Isaac directly addressed a gag order that has been placed on firemen and police officers in New York.
"It's amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs," said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9-11. There is more information related to Isaac circulating in on-line and print reports, so here again we are hearing first-hand evidence from individuals who were on the scene, such as live witness William Rodriguez, saying that the World Trade Center towers were brought down not by the airliner's impact or the resulting jet fuel fires, but instead by a deliberately executed controlled demolition.
Tragically, due to heavy-handed pressure from officials at the city, state and federal levels, we are still not hearing the entire story.
Researcher Vincent Sammartino, who was also at the WTC "open grave site" on the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2005, wrote the following on the on-line news web site APFN: "I just got back from Ground Zero. People know the truth. Half of the police and firemen were coming up to us and telling us that they know that 9-11 was an inside job. They were told not to talk about it. But they were supporting what we were doing. I had tears in my eyes
americanfreepress . net / h t m l / bombs _ inside _ wtc . h t m l
{on the conspiracy sites.
by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Fri Aug 25, 06 6:46am}
Do please step your foot in the cowpat, Mr Fiddle, and define EXACTLY what you mean by "conspiracy site"?
My opinion is that 9-11 was a terrorist attack on the Twin Towers and that the buildings collapsed for the reasons given. Call me a gull, but that's how it plays for me.
"EVERY OTHER OCCASION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when steel & concrete buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition."
What does that prove?
{What does that prove?
by Applerod on Fri Aug 25, 06 10:47am}
It proves a great deal more than you will ever admit to.
Margaret?
Yes, you are a gull
)o;
"It proves a great deal more than you will ever admit to."
Then why waste your effort in trying to prove it to him?
"EVERY OTHER OCCASION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when steel & concrete buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition."
The famous historic first flight in Paris by two Frenchmen in 1783 occured despite the fact that others had tried and failed to fly. The first successful summit of Mount Everest by Tenzig Norgay and Sir Edmund Hillary occured despite the fact that others had tried and failed.
Just because something hasn't happened before (or after) doesn't mean it can't happen. 9/11 could be, and IMO, is, a historic first.
that's how they get you. they tell you that you are arguing something impossible, then demand you prove it. their claim of freefall, or "near" freefall, is based on manipulated calculations.
{Then why waste your effort in trying to prove it to him?
by himself809 on Fri Aug 25, 06 2:46pm}
I'm not wasting my time, but you might be wasting mine and everyone else's.
{ Just because something hasn't happened before (or after) doesn't mean it can't happen.
by himself809 on Fri Aug 25, 06 2:46pm}
That's a pathetic excuse. Go and find something with a little more logic than "but maybe, just maybe, it was a trillions to one never happened to have happened you know..."
Doesn't work.
Common aspects of the Coincidence Theorist;
Number 13. The coincidences and excuses to support them grow in the telling, and can swell to mind-boggling hallucinatory levels until the likelihood of the official version of events occurring becomes astronomically absurd.
{their claim of freefall, or "near" freefall, is based on manipulated calculations.
by neothe1 on Fri Aug 25, 06 5:32pm}
Stop playing STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS, neothe1 the lying shill.
We aren't saying the buildings went down "at freefall" (which isn't true) we are saying that they went down "close to freefall".
The calculations aren't manipulated to prove the buildings's destruction could only be controlled demolitions, they just show that according to physics, they are in fact controlled demolitions because they can be nothing else. Deal with it. This is a fact. Which is why NOBODY, not NIST, not NOVA, not MIT, nor by Eagar, nor Dr Frank Green, or anyone else can mathematically simulate those collapses by ignoring controlled demolitions.
All I was saying with my comment was that, in the absence of all other evidence (not saying there IS an absence of evidence), to claim that 9/11 could not have happened without explosives because it had never happened before may be faulty reasoning. I wasn't saying that all of the evidence you've offered isn't credible, just that that particular piece isn't *necessarily* correct.
I agree with himself.
Everything happens for a first time.
I agree with himself.
Everything happens for a first time.
by Applerod on Sat Aug 26, 06 9:53am
Tell me when the Moon turns into green cheese for the first time then...
what ever way you want to rephrase it, murderer, it's still false. it did not collapse anywhere near freefall.
WTC 7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds. The freefall time was 6 second. WOW, ISN'T THAT CLOSE TO FREEFALL TIME!!!
WTC 1 and WTC 2 each collapsed in around 12 or 13 seconds. Their freefall times were around 9.2 seconds. WOW, THAT WAS NEAR FREEFALL TIME TOO!
 Keep sticking your head in the sand, but I have the feeling that your claims are intentional BS.
already proven. manipulated calculations and alternate accounts don't change facts.
you haven't proven anything you little liar! I've seen your posts everywhere and all you tell is more lies! Or you spam the ballots!
proven. deal with it.
oh, and
mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror mirror
neothe1, every time you spam the ballots, you announce to everyone that you are a loser and a liar. You are too cowardly to debate properly. You tell lies. You spam. You get rated down for lying and spamming.
You have no credibility on this site.
it's respam. i'm not in control of it. everytime you mirror, you're going to get a page of the word "mirror" over and over and over again. the logical thing to do then ius to stop mirroring.
No it's spam.
everytime that you do it, you prove to everyone that you are a coward and a loser. You must be a very stupid person if you believe that spamming adds to your argument; it destroys your arguments entirely. When you resort to spamming in a stupid way, you tell everyone that you are a childish and very stupid person, that you are dishonest in debate, and that you are a coward. Since you do it everytime that someone proves you wrong, or catches you lying, you also prove that the other person is winning the debate.
I'm gonna have to go with Tank_Girl on this one.
he posts huge articles, and you're going to criticise me for mocking him?
"he posts huge articles, and you're going to criticise me for mocking him?
by neothe1 on Sat Aug 26, 06 9:28pm"
Who posts huge articles? Ken from Dublin?
and you aren't mocking; you're posting spam. That's all it is; spam spam spam.
"originally had thought there was like an internal detonation"
So, that was originally then, but not now.
"then there was secondary explosions and then subsequent collapses"
A building was on fire and catastophically damaged - of course there were explosions and collapses.
"It was as if as if they had detonated"
So, it wasn't a detonation - just like one.
"We think there was bombs set in the building"
Oh you THINK there was? Evidence speaks otherwise so, sorry but you think wrong.
It's too monotonous and pointless to keep pointing out the lameness of using the eyewitness reports - most of them blatantly undermine the conspiracists position.
Seeing as there had never been a plane crashed into the twin towers before where do you get the supreme arrogance to suggest that you know what should or shouldn't have happened in the collapse?!
You are demonstrably wrong on the "close to freefall speed" collaspe as anyone who has a video of the event can see. And the "footprint collapse" argument is wrong for two reasons: firstly it's simply not true - many surrounding buildings were severely damaged by the collaspe and remained in a serious state of disrepair for many, many months (something that almost NEVER happens in a controlled demolition) and secondly EVEN if we ignore the evidence and accept your claim of a collapse into the footprint that is absolutely no proof of a controlled demolition. You are committing a basic logical fallacy - post hoc ergo propter hoc.
As research and evidence takes apart each and every claim that is made you are painting yourselves into an insupportable and ridiculuous position.
{"originally had thought there was like an internal detonation"
So, that was originally then, but not now.
by wideheadofknowledge on Sun Aug 27, 06 3:34am}
Prove it's not what he thinks now.
{s research and evidence takes apart each and every claim that is made you are painting yourselves into an insupportable and ridiculuous position.
by wideheadofknowledge on Sun Aug 27, 06 3:34am}
Really??
if you can't cite anyone with a successful simulation of the collapses of the WTC buildings, where the actual collapses are simulated with the empirical data, then you don't have a case.
Let's not forget that nobody has yet simulated or modelled those collapses while ignoring controlled demlitions. NIST didn't, they stopped the simulations because they couldn't simulate the collapses with the empirical data, even in their worst case scenario! They gave up! Instead they added pages and pages of nonsense explanations, suppositions, and assumpions to cover what they couldn't simulate. NOVA and Eagar couldn't simulate the collapses either. Barant and Zhou had their math torn to pieces already as they tried to FORCE the simulations to fit, and changed them unrealistically. That chinese "engineer" didn't even publish his formula for his simulations, and he ADMITS in his paper that he forced the simulations in ways which deviated from reality, and he's not experienced with steel buildings anyway (he works with concrete). Dr Francis Green is a chemist, not an engineer or a physicist, and he did a similar trick, deviating from real data to force his formula to simulate what was impossible with the empirical data. Nobody has been able to simulate those collapses, except as controlled demolitions.
{ou are demonstrably wrong on the "close to freefall speed" by wideheadofknowledge on Sun Aug 27, 06 3:34am}
WTC 7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds close to freefall speed. The freefall time was 6 seconds
WTC 1 and WTC 2 - their freefall times were around 9.2 seconds each collapsed in around 12 or 13 seconds close to freefall speed,
It is a FACT that it is impossible to make a cellphone call from a metal-skinned passenger plane flying 5 to 6 miles up without an onboard cellular basestation (technology unavailable before 2004), and it is a FACT that it's impossible to make cellphone call last longer than a few seconds when moving at hundreds of miles per hour. Which means it's also without any doubt that the alleged cellphone calls from the planes were FAKE.
It is a FACT that no steel-framed hi-rises or tower buildings have ever collapsed directly downward at nearly freefall through their own structure into their footprint without a controlled demolition. It is a FACT that nobody has been able to simulate/model the WTC building collapses with the empirical data, except as controlled demolitions, and that according to the empirical data even in the worst case scenarios of NIST, the collapses were impossible and could not occurr, despite their layering of assumptions to explain the collapses because they couldn't model them.
paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste
already proven
(already proven
by neothe1 on Sun Aug 27, 06 10:10am)
Apparently not. You resorted to spamming instead. That says you couldn't refute this reply from Lovelynice
{ou are demonstrably wrong on the "close to freefall speed" by wideheadofknowledge on Sun Aug 27, 06 3:34am}
WTC 7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds close to freefall speed. The freefall time was 6 seconds
WTC 1 and WTC 2 - their freefall times were around 9.2 seconds each collapsed in around 12 or 13 seconds close to freefall speed,
It is a FACT that it is impossible to make a cellphone call from a metal-skinned passenger plane flying 5 to 6 miles up without an onboard cellular basestation (technology unavailable before 2004), and it is a FACT that it's impossible to make cellphone call last longer than a few seconds when moving at hundreds of miles per hour. Which means it's also without any doubt that the alleged cellphone calls from the planes were FAKE.
It is a FACT that no steel-framed hi-rises or tower buildings have ever collapsed directly downward at nearly freefall through their own structure into their footprint without a controlled demolition. It is a FACT that nobody has been able to simulate/model the WTC building collapses with the empirical data, except as controlled demolitions, and that according to the empirical data even in the worst case scenarios of NIST, the collapses were impossible and could not occurr, despite their layering of assumptions to explain the collapses because they couldn't model them.
by Lovelynice on Sun Aug 27, 06 7:27am
watch as neothe1 spams again
paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste
behold the wrath of the respam. bow down before it's awesome might.
henceforth, you shall be knows as "lovely daughter of meteorcircuit the tank_kafir from dublin"
Wait! That should be: "big lovely monkey daughter of meteorcircuitnuts the tank_kafir from dublin"
freefall: not true
Cellphones: used airphones
demolition: didn't happen
footprint: not true and doesn't prove anything even if it was.
What evidence would you need to prove to you demolitions were not used?
{freefall: not true
by wideheadofknowledge on Sun Aug 27, 06 10:24pm}
STRAWMAN ARGUMENT!!!
Cite who stated on this ballot that the buildings went down at freefall, with the time, date, and quote.
We have always stated "close to freefall" never "freefall".
Don't pretend otherwise.
{Cellphones: used airphones
by wideheadofknowledge on Sun Aug 27, 06 10:24pm}
THESE CALLS WERE ALLEGEDLY MADE BY CELLPHONES!
AND ALL OF THESE CELLPHONE CALLS WERE IMPOSSIBLE AND THEREFORE FAKE
CeeCee Lyles: CELLPHONE - Her husband Lorne Lyles who managed to take her second call reported that he saw her ID therefore we can assume that she used a cell phone. A flight attendant using a cell phone is of course extremely strange given the fact that she should very well know that there are airphones aboard and it is much more likely to come through using this kind of phone. Call 1: Beginning: 9:47, Length: unclear as no indication what she left as a message on her answering machine. But we can assume from the fact that she managed to leave a message that the length was at least: 15’. Call 2: 9:58, Length: 1’ 00’’ (my estimation based on accounts of the call). She got disconnected.
post-gazette . com / headlines / 20011028flt93lylesbiop8 . asp
election . cbsnews . com / stories / 2001 / 09 / 12 / national / main310935 . shtml
Jeremy Glick, 31, from West Milford, New Jersey, He called his wife, Liz, and in-laws in New York on a CELLPHONE to tell them the plane had been hijacked
cnn . com / SPECIALS / 2001 / trade . center / victims / ua93.victims . html
msnbc . com / news / 627214 . asp
Elizabeth Wainio - CELLPHONE
msnbc . msn . com / id / 3067652
Thomas E. Burnett Jr - CELLPHONE 3-4 calls
usatoday . com / news / nation / 2001 / 09 / 11 /victims-capsules . htm
post-gazette . com/headlines / 20010913somersetnat 3p3 . asp
Lauren Grandcolas, her husband said his wife made a quick CELLPHONE call before the plane crashed in Pennsylvania.
usatoday . com / news / nation / 2001 / 09 / 11 / victims-capsules . htm
Sandra Bradshaw - CELLPHONE
webcache . news-record . com / legacy / photo / tradecenter / bradshaw21 . htm
Marion Britton - 13 minutes call from a CELLPHONE
post-gazette.com / headlines / 20010922 gtenat 4p4 . asp
WOW, A WHOLE THIRTEEN MINUTES!!!
What amazingly unbelievable MAGIC CELLPHONES they had on those planes back in 2001 - flying along at 500mph, at a speed where it's impossible for the phone to maintain a connection anyway for longer than a few seconds, and these amazing MAGIC CELLPHONES haven't any problems with reality at all.
EDWARD FELT CELLPHONE CALL
The alleged call (strangely not mentioned in the 9-11 Commision Report) by Edward Felt from the toilet of the aircraft of UAL 93 was answered by Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor in Pennsylvania who took the call.
"Local emergency officials said they received a CELLPHONE call at 9.58 am from a man who said he was a passenger aboard the flight. The man said he had locked himself in the bathroom and told emergency dispatchers that the plane had been hijacked. "We are being hijacked! We are being hijacked!" he was quoted as saying.
Glenn Cramer has now been gagged by the FBI.
pittsburghlive . com / x / tribune-review / news / s_90401 . html
BARBARA OLSON CALL
On the American Airlines Flight 77 from Washington, television reporter Barbara Olson, 46, locked herself in the lavatory to call her husband, Solicitor General Theodore Olson.
(I GUESS THAT AIRPHONE HAD AN EXTRA LONG EXTENSION CORD!!!) The cord on an airphone will not reach into the bathroom, this suggests she was using a CELLPHONE.
CELLPHONES in planes don't work over 5-10,000 ft and inside a sealed bathroom would insert an extra 3-6 dB of loss. that means signal quality, which would have been nearly impossibe anyway would have been cut to 1/3 to 1/6th strength. (Ted states that the quality of the connection was CLEAR !)
According to the BBC, she used a CELLPHONE news . bbc . co . uk / 1 / hi / world / americas / 1539193 . stm
What's absolutely essential for those "on the fence" or who are undecided about this is to remember: 9-11 conspiracy theorists have shifted their focus from one element to another as evidence comes forward.
Check for example the mockumentary "Loose Change". Ever wonder why the lying, cheating fraudsters who made it came up with a second edition? Well, it's because in the first edition their key piece of evidence was that a missle was fired at the towers from the mythical "pod" located under the aircraft that struck the second tower. After being humiliatingly embarrassed and debunked they removed every trace of it in their second edition.
Theorists use irrelevant eyewitness comments "it was just like a detonation" to try and bolster their story whilst totally and utterly failing to put forward ANY kind of coherent theory as to how any of this conspiracy could have been acheived.
They have NO theory - it's all pure nonsense.
{footprint: not true and doesn't prove anything even if it was.
by wideheadofknowledge on Sun Aug 27, 06 10:24pm}
Yes it is true. You can't dodge this one. WTC 7 fell 95% within it's own footprint.
{"it was just like a detonation"
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Aug 28, 06 12:39am}
Presumably the witnesses stated what they said that saw, particularly as it's supported by video evidence showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions.
{demolition: didn't happen
by wideheadofknowledge on Sun Aug 27, 06 10:24pm}
YES IT DID. 3 times, in fact.
It's a FACT before and after Sept 11 2001 that no steel-framed hi-rise or tower-style buildings have ever collapsed straightdown at close to freefall speed into their own footprint - except with controlled demolitions, and that it is IMPOSSIBLE without a controlled demolition according to the laws of PHYSICS.
It's a fact that NOBODY has ever successfully simulated the collapses of WTC 1, 2, & 7 without considering controlled demolition, and that means NOBODY. Not NIST, not, NOVA, Dr Eagar, FEMA, MIT, Bazant & Zhou, nor Dr Frank Green, nor anyone else. NOBODY has succeeded; those who have claimed to have done so, have ALWAYS been proven to be LIARS when their mathematical formula were checked.
It's a FACT, that there was NO INFERNO in either of the WTC twin towers. The temperatures of the fires never went above 360C, and apparently were around 250C, which is well below the 550C at which steel only barely begins to lose it's elasticity. Glass melts at 700C - There are no reports of melting glass at the towers, and the glass in the storeys above the fire didn't seem to break so the temperature was clearly way below 700C. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC - Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. Kevin Ryan of UL had cited a similar figure (250C).
It's a FACT that there were hundeds of witnesses to explosions at the WTC buildings, and that their claims are supported by video evidence showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions.
{"Loose Change". ...
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Aug 28, 06 12:39am}
Bla, bla, bla...
I didn't make "Loose Change". Neither did anyone else that I know. In truth, I have never seen it.
Trying to associate all 9/11 sceptics with a single movie is ridiculous.
{9-11 conspiracy theorists have shifted their focus from one element to another as evidence comes forward.
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Aug 28, 06 12:39am}
Yes, like the dicovery of YET ANOTHER IMPOSSIBILITY in the Official Lies! The fact that seismic tremors are SHORTER than the collapse times! Which means that the tremors wer not from the collapses but from another energy source and further evidence of controlled demolitions.
Then YET ANOTHER IMPOSSIBILITY in the Official Lies, with the discovery that according to the seismic data, the tremors associated in the Official Lies associated with the plane impacts actually occur 14 and 17 seconds BEFORE THE PLANES HIT THE BUILDINGS! More evidence of explosives being used, just as witnesses had described about explosions in the basements of the buildings.
New evidence turns proving the Official Lies are more and increasingly impossible; you're stories are crumbling under these impossibilities inherent in the Official Lies!
Everything you are saying is a flat out lie or is absolutely no proof of demolition.
"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
Arthur Lerner-Lam, seismologist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC.
So the guy at the University where the seismograph actually is doesn't agree with you - is he a shill too?
How about the many "collapse into footprints" of other buildings that were not controlled demolition?
Ronan Point 1968
Baileys Crossroads 1973
New World Hotel Singapore 1986
L'Ambiance Plaza 1987
Or are those conspiracies too? Google them.
Every point, absolutely every one has been torn apart again and again.
{Everything you are saying is a flat out lie by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Aug 28, 06 4:32am}
Saying that only means that YOU are lying. If you think that I'm lying about anything then cite EXACTLY WHERE, WHEN, AND ON WHAT BALLOT with the date, time, and quote. Since I have never knowingly lied on any site, anywhere, this will be an IMPOSSIBLE TASK for you... The LIAR is YOU for claiming that I lied.
{"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
Arthur Lerner-Lam, seismologist
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Aug 28, 06 4:32am}
So, when did Mr Lerner-Lam learn physics and structural engineering, and when did he prove MATHEMATICALLY in his simulation of the WTC building collapses that they were gravity-driven, and required no extra sources of energy? What!???? You mean that he DIDN'T! Well, that isn't going to do as any kind of refutation of the physics is it?
It's impossible to prove that the WTC buildings were taken down WITHOUT controlled demolitions because
1) nobody has been able to do so with the empirical data and according to NIST's own models, it was impossible (they couldn't do it with even the worse case scenario)
2) EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when steel & concrete buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition. Can you cite a single exception to this? With link to photos and/or video to back your BS
3) It's IMPOSSIBLE for a steel-framed hi-rise to collapse straightdown through it's own structure without a controlled demolition at such speed because it goes against the 3rd law of thermodynamics, which is why it's never happened before or since Sept 11 2001.
Now considering this, there is only one conclusion - the WTC buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions.
Your carrying with other excuses can't get around this.
{Ronan Point 1968
Baileys Crossroads 1973
New World Hotel Singapore 1986
L'Ambiance Plaza 1987
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Aug 28, 06 4:32am}
So which one of these are steel-framed hi-rise buildings?
Ronan Point 1968 = concrete building
Baileys Crossroads 1973 = concrete building
New World Hotel Singapore 1986 = concrete building
L'Ambiance Plaza 1987 = concrete building
ANSWER = NONE OF THEM! LOL
NEXT!
You said:
" Yes, like the dicovery of YET ANOTHER IMPOSSIBILITY in the Official Lies! The fact that seismic tremors are SHORTER than the collapse times! Which means that the tremors wer not from the collapses but from another energy source and further evidence of controlled demolitions."
Our seismologist said:
"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
So let us get this straight - YOU think that a seismologist isn't qualified to comment on a seismograph?
Ok, sure, whatever you say.
L'Ambiance Plaza was planned to be a sixteen-story building with thirteen apartment levels topping three parking levels. It consisted of two offset rectangular towers, 63 ft by 112 ft each, connected by an elevator. Seven-inch thick posttensioned, concrete slabs and steel columns comprised its structural frame (Cuoco, 1992)
All other builings mentioned contained steel reinforcement.
So, there is one example of a steel-framed building collapsing into it's footprint without demolition.
It takes about 30 seconds of internet searching by anyone to find this information - or is the internet a government shill too?
Our seismologist said:
"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context." by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Aug 28, 06 4:20pm
Your seismologist isn't a structural engineer, how would he know? He can comment on his seismograph all he likes, but he can only depend on structural engineers and physicists to say whether those were controlled demolitions. They need to be able to model those collapses as being gravity driven to prove that the destruction of the buildings weren't controlled demolitions; but no one has been able to do that. WTC 7 in particular looks exactly like a controlled implosive demolition, so perfect, that it's one of the best on record.
All other builings mentioned contained steel reinforcement.
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Aug 28, 06 4:38pm
Most concrete buildings have some steel reinforcement, but that doesn't make them steel-framed structures. To be a steel-framed structure, the main support has to be the steel frame itself, not the concrete.
L'Ambiance Plaza
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Aug 28, 06 4:38pm
Did it collapse at near freefall time into it's own footprint like WTC 7?
So let us get this straight - YOU think that a seismologist isn't qualified to comment on a seismograph?
by wideheadofknowledge on Mon Aug 28, 06 4:20pm
Woooah, I just noticed what LN was talking about.
There's no way that the seismologist can explain away the too short seismic tremors. I doubt that he actually knew about the dramatic differences between the collapse times and the seismic tremors at the time that he made that quoted statement. The 9-11 Commision didn't mention them either, and they got the collapse times wrong.
Your quote is TOO OLD. It's from before the time when these dramatic differences were noticed.
The seismograph claims have be debunked again and again.
When one piece of evidence that you cite is shown to be a misrepresentation, lie or error - suddenly that evidence doesn't count.
The conspiracy theorists distort the seismograph readings simply by using a shortened timescale (x axis) on their presentation of the data.
And finally seismologists CAN conclude whether a seismograph indicates a controlled demolition by comparing it with those of a known demolition.
{The seismograph claims have be debunked
by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Aug 29, 06 11:53pm}
Really??? WHEN? What was the excuse for the tremors being SHORTER than the collapse times? MAGIC maybe?
{ Most concrete buildings have some steel reinforcement, but that doesn't make them steel-framed structures. To be a steel-framed structure, the main support has to be the steel frame itself, not the concrete.
by Coldcircuit on Tue Aug 29, 06 7:17am}
That's a critical point that they like to ignore.
I didn't ignore either of the two points you make above.
1)L'ambiance was steel framed. Read the quote again.
2)the seismograph readings were made to look misleading by enlarging the time scale (x axis) to hide the true "shape" of the graph. This is well known as a tactic by those who wish to manipulate contrary evidence to help support their claim or by people who can't choose appropriate axes when drawing graphs.
Re: the seismographs.
I was talking about the SHORTNESS of the tremors, not the shape of them
Collapse times for WTC 1 & 2 are 13-14 seconds for main collapse, another 10 seonds for the steel box column cores (last thing seen in the videos and photos coming down). However, the tremors lasted only 8.5 seconds for WTC 1, and 10 seconds for WTC 2. That's TOO SHORT, and it means that it was NOT the collapsing buidings which making those tremors.
The other problem is that for the plane impacts, there were in fact NO TREMORS, but instead the tremors occured BEFORE the planes hit the buildings; 14 seconds too early for the first impact, 17 seconds too early for the second impact. Which means it wasn't the plane impacts which made those tremors...so what did?
L'Ambiance Plaza was to be a 16 story structure with 3 parking levels and 13 apartment levels. It was composed of two offset rectangular towers, separated by a construction joint at a central elevator lobby. Each tower was approximately 63 ft x 110 ft (19.2 m x 33.5 m) in plan. Typical floor to floor height was 8 ft - 8 in. (2.64 m). The structural frame had steel columns and 7-in. (178 mm) thick post-tensioned concrete flat plate floors.
The flat plate floors were designed to be constructed by the "lift slab system." The design used unbonded plastic-sheathed post-tensioning tendons in each direction. Tendons were banded within a strip along the column lines in the east-west direction and were distributed uniformly over the width of the bay in the north-south direction. Mild steel reinforcing was limited, consisting of small mats of #5 bars in the top of theslab at each column, 2 - #4 or #5 bars along slab openings and edges, and miscellaneous bars at locations of minor extent in, or adjacent to, pour strips and shear walls. Steel channel shear collars were provided at all column locations for load transfer and lifting operations.
engineering . com / content/ Content Display ? contentId = 41009018
Lateral resistance in the completed structure was provided by two shear walls in each direction in each tower. These extended to two levels below the roof. For the top two levels, lateral resistance relied on frame action with rigid joints between steel columns and post-tensioned slabs.
The building was founded on spread footings intended to be on rock. Ground level was up to 2 stories higher on the north side than on the south side. The unbalanced lateral earth pressures were supported by the building foundation walls and the shear walls.
The L'Ambiance Plaza building had steel columns and poured concrete slab floors. Each column had a hydraulic jack at its top connected to a pair of lifting rods extending down to collars in the floor slabs. The floors were permanently attached to the columns once they were lifted into place.
Sheer walls were required to stabilize the building against lateral loads. The plans called for the installation of the sheer walls within three floors of the elevated stack of slabs. However, at the time of the collapse the sheer walls had been built up to only about five levels below the stack.
The L'Ambiance Plaza building was under construction and far from completion, whereas WTC 1, 2, and 7 were finished buildings that had stood for many years. Buildings under construction rely on temporary structures and do not employ the reserve strength ratios required for finished construction.
It wasn't actually a steel-framed building, but was designed with steel vertically and concrete slabs horizontally. There were no steel cross beams.
You'll have to find another one, which really is a steel-framed building (^^)
Unlike the L'Ambiance Plaza building, the World Trade Center skyscrapers had robust core structures with indepdent flooring systems
Witness recollections of the L'Ambiance Plaza, unlike accounts of the Twin Towers' collapses do not include perceptions of explosions or controlled demolition.
Have you actually seen a decent video of a controlled demolition complete with audio?
It is absolutely NOTHING like what was seen at the wtc towers in ANY of the cases.
When a building is brought down by controlled demolition a series of unmissable bright flashes occur vertically at almost every floor (in some cases they do occur at every floor). This is accompanied by extremely loud detonantions. In skyscrapers there is usually a large detonation at the base just prior to collapse.
The visible and audible detonantions would have been absolutely unmissable in the twin towers due to the fact that the frame would have had to been detached from each floor in numerous positions.
Not one solitary demolition company agrees with the controlled demolition theory - care to explain why that is?
|
|
