150 tons per tower? 10,000 hol ... heard of cutter charges? Wires? Ever heard of radio controlled/wireless? Did you know that "Ace El ... e 9 months prior to 9/11?
Well secrets are easily kept from the masses, we've gone through that. There wouldn't actually have to be that many people involved. A few workers, over the 9 months Ace Elevators were there, could easily have time to rig the building. A few to control the events of that day, 10-20. Not that many at all.
Eh, isn't it obvious? The planes hit the tops of the towers, they'd hardly do a "normal" demolition on the towers.
I believe whoever was in control that day was obviously watching the events as it unfolded, so it didn't actual have to be known in advance where the planes would hit, just watch where the hit and start from there.
Well see, if you actually did some research you would know that the towers were due for a huge revamp because they were full of asbestos which hasd to be removed. Using them as part of a terrorist attack was financially cheaper, plus Larry Silverstein was in for a big payout if it was a terrorist attack, since that's what his insurance covered him for. And just if you didn't know, he tried to claim each tower was a seperate terrorist attack and wanted to claim $7mil, I think he ended up getting 3 or 4mil. Not really stupid to, in your eyes, harm their economic power because they have the Fedral Reserve who prints money whenever the US government want some, so money isn't an issue with these lads.
So tell me this, do you know any secrets about the Committee of 300? The Order of the Garter? The Knights of Malta? The Club of Rome? How about the Bilderberg Group? Or the Trilateral Commission, or even the Council of Foreign Relations? Tell me, do you know these groups and what they are up to? They have alot of influential powers and nobody seems to even know they exist. It's easy to keep secrets from the public, no matter how many people we think are involved, there will always be major things being controlled that we do not know who is behind it. Don't be foolish enough to think that your local, even national or international, news is there to tell you everything which is going on in the world. They are there to tell you what the "powers that be"(ie the aforementioned groups) want you to know. Why do you think all businesses are being bought out by the big guns? They're all merging into massive corporations so they'll end up controlling everything. That's their "big idea" anyway... A moto they're very fond of - "Ordo Ab Chao" = "Order out of Chaos"
I seriously cannot believe that you, with all that education and knowledge, look at those collapses and think, "Yeah, that's supposed to go like that", I just can't believe it....
Ok...
The fire was never hot enough and was beginning to burnt out, ask any NIST official, or just read their documents about the tests done on the pieces of metal, which they selected for testing themselves.
"Gradually the internal support structure of the building is collapsing, transferring it's load to other trusses." - Would we not see, if this was infact the case, signs of this on the exterior of the building? Would we not see the tower leaning to the side in which this support structure "gradually" failed on? There was nothing gradual in these collapses, the only thing which we can all be certain on was the gradual spreading of fire throughout the damaged floors. Anything else that happened gradually would have been visible from the exterior. Like, trusses failing and the exterior walls buckling out/in, core gradually failing would lead to the tower leaning to the weakest point.
I don't know lads, you 2 are, or atleast claim to be
, more educated than me but yet you can't see what I see in the collapses. I don't think I've been led astray, I don't think I'm an easily led person. Nor do I think that there's a conspiracy in everything, like some people have suggested. The only people who I have actually talked to face to face about this and who don't agree with me, is my family, well not all but the majority of them disagree. Everyone else I show this to, friends, friends of friends, all see what I see, even though up until that point they believed terrorists did it all.@Mazz - That's a cool image I have it a while now, it's 9300x9300 pixels, so it shows the whole WTC complex in great detail. Anyway, just want to clear up the name thing. U4IK ST8 = Euphoric State
Last edited by U4IK ST8, .
Ok, so show me where you get this information from? Because I'm sure that not only I, but many other people looking into this would like to see it.
If you look at the second tower to fall, there is no way that it gradually failed. The section falling halved in sized in the first few seconds, explain that to me please.
Watch it for yourself - http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_ ... how.php?i=364&hires=1
If you look at the second tower to fall, there is no way that it gradually failed. The section falling halved in sized in the first few seconds, explain that to me please.
Watch it for yourself - http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_ ... how.php?i=364&hires=1
That's funny because not one part of the official story, or any investigation btw, can destroy the statements made by the people I linked to, none. So, I'm very interested in hearing your response.
You go on like you know it all when actually, the investigations you base your theory on have been proven to be incomplete, so your arguements can't actually prove anything else, other than what the investigations have already shown. There'll be no new info from your next post, I can guarantee it.
@th84 - I never promised anything...
Last edited by U4IK ST8, .
That is rediculous. I seriously cannot believe you truely believe what you are saying there, honestly...
Show me proof of this outward/inward bowing because all I've seen on this is an attempt to show it through a computer program, which can easily be manipulted to get the results you want. A computer generated animation which FAILED to show ANY core columns in it's animation/test. And it's impossible, yes impossible, that one truss at a time failed when it can clearly be seen that there was simultanious failure of the entire floor space, over multiple floors, so there's another blatant lie. I don't know where you are getting this information from but it is clearly flawed.
Nice, you study physics and you can clearly understand that a 110 storey building can be crushed/pulverised by a ~20% portion of itself? Amazing.... Read what the second structural engineer has to say in my previous post. And he is alot more qualified to speak on this than you OR I, OR your tutor for that matter.
Ok, I know you all knew I wouldn't totally leave this thread, but anyway. I'm also not going to get dragged into tit for tat shit saying you lads stupid, or you are all idiots.
Moving on....
----
All investigations into the collapses were not thorough and precise in their efforts to find exactly what happen all WTC buildings. That's a fact...
There are too many unexplainable incidents on 9/11 for anyone to just take the official word for what happened, if you find a thorough investigation, which explains exactly what happened to each floor, please show me, I'd like to read it.
Next, people here have stated things about physics and saying I have no clue. Fair enough, do you think these people have no clue too?
And next, these trusses, man... I can't understand your logic on this. Lets look at the 2nd tower to go, every single "truss", at every single point over the few floors at the impact zone had to fail within a split second of each other for it to collapse like it did. Also, if you watch it, the crushing piece(the top ~15 floors) reduces itself by HALF within the first few seconds. That is IMPOSSIBLE in a heat enduced, gravitational collapse. (First of all, the fires were not spread out that much on that many floors and second, the fires were not hot enough across that many floors to make them fail simultainiuosly)There's a statement, somebody prove me wrong, please.
Moving on....
----
All investigations into the collapses were not thorough and precise in their efforts to find exactly what happen all WTC buildings. That's a fact...
There are too many unexplainable incidents on 9/11 for anyone to just take the official word for what happened, if you find a thorough investigation, which explains exactly what happened to each floor, please show me, I'd like to read it.
Next, people here have stated things about physics and saying I have no clue. Fair enough, do you think these people have no clue too?
- President of the New Mexico In ... f Mining & Technology
- Demolitions Expert
- Structural Engineer
- Another Structural Engineer
- And another Structural Engineer
- Fire Protection Engineer
- Another Fire Protection Engineer
- FEMA Study Team Member and Structural Expert
- FEMAs Structural Engineer
And next, these trusses, man... I can't understand your logic on this. Lets look at the 2nd tower to go, every single "truss", at every single point over the few floors at the impact zone had to fail within a split second of each other for it to collapse like it did. Also, if you watch it, the crushing piece(the top ~15 floors) reduces itself by HALF within the first few seconds. That is IMPOSSIBLE in a heat enduced, gravitational collapse. (First of all, the fires were not spread out that much on that many floors and second, the fires were not hot enough across that many floors to make them fail simultainiuosly)There's a statement, somebody prove me wrong, please.
Hmmm... ok. I just popped back quickly to see any responses and well, the responses are clear. I'm not taking this insulting attitude any more, I'll believe what I know is right, not what I think is right.
You believe what you lads want. No need to be insulting.
Anyway, I'm out.
You believe what you lads want. No need to be insulting.
Anyway, I'm out.
I'll respond to the rest later, have shit to do, but this is what I will say about that.
The blueprints for the buildings are CLASSIFIED so how these channels, organisations got hold of them I don't know. Blurry? LMAO. At least they aren't computer generated ones which you showed me. And anothe point where you CLEARLY have no clue how the towers were built. The trusses were NOT installed indiviually, the came as part of a floor structure, with 3 trusses attached to what looks like sheet metal. So saying "THOSE BEAMS ARE TRUSSES" is a truely uneducated, silly arguement.
I'll be back later to respond to the rest, I haven't actually read it all.
Scientific? Not really as the people in question haven't actually taken the test so how can you scientifically judge their ethics?
So, lets say I forget controlled demo and say bin Laden was alowed to go ahead with 9/11. Why isn't he wanted for the attacks? Explain that, if you could. I also very much doubt Bush is actually behind the attacks or had any involvement in the planning of the attacks, I haven't once mentioned that in any of my responses. I think Bush is, like every other government official not only in the US, a puppet of the masters. But once again that is totally off topic and I don't think it's the place to get into that. This is also off topic, so I'll keep it short.
So, lets say I forget controlled demo and say bin Laden was alowed to go ahead with 9/11. Why isn't he wanted for the attacks? Explain that, if you could. I also very much doubt Bush is actually behind the attacks or had any involvement in the planning of the attacks, I haven't once mentioned that in any of my responses. I think Bush is, like every other government official not only in the US, a puppet of the masters. But once again that is totally off topic and I don't think it's the place to get into that. This is also off topic, so I'll keep it short.
First off, thanks for taking the time to respond. 
Obviously not, but a picture can show what the structre was actually like. The whole official story rests on these trusses weakening, bending, pulling the walls and evetually shearing the "small bolts", which supposidley starts a chain reaction and a dynamic failure causes a total collapse. So, these I beam would be able to withstand considerably higher temps due to their thickness and design, compared to the trusses. I also never mentioned that they could not buckle, it is quite evident from the fire test I linked to that I beams will buckle from office fires, but as also stated in that video, the steel will not catastrophically fail due to office fires. Also, the man in the video is a FEMA official who stats he never, before 9/11, in his 20 years, has seen or heard of a steel framed high rise building collapse because of fire. The towers held their ground after the impacts and I would put my neck on the line and say they would have been able to stand there like that for days, weeks without failing any further if there was no fire involved. I also must mention that the steel in that test is unprotected, we have no evidence that the I beams in the towers were totally unprotected like these were.
I'd have to watch again but I'm sure there was a few rooms in this office so I doubt there was only one beam being tested. Ok, so some of the steel frame was damaged where the plane struck but how can you explain, after seeing the I beams connecting the core to the outer wall and it being such and intense grid of steel I beams, core columns and exterior columns, believe that it just feel into itself without any resistance at all. It seems physically impossible to me, as I have stated many times. I just can't picture it in my head, I can picture the entire building without any material but steel and it seems unbreakable, specially by itself, a lighter portion of itself for that matter, the top section.
Sorry? "There is no such thing as falling with the path of least resistance without a side load from some source." Do you think that steel loosing its strength would be a force to cause it to tip over? The first tower to collapse tipped over, so why didn't it keep going over? Like the image in that link. It seems like a reasonable conclusion to make. Once something, specially that big, begins to move in a certain direction, there's not much that can stop it. Downward force? Huh? Everything, everywhere is constantly under a downward force, gravity and atmospheric pressure, one thing I rember from my science classes. Anyway, the building were designed to withstand this downward force, other wise they wouldn't be standing.
Ok, the first is a firefighter, the second is a former Air Force dude, can't remember his title, and the third is a worker from the towers. And anyway, who are you to say they don't know what they are talking about? The air force lad obviously knows because of how he explains it, the firefighter chap seems to know what he's on about to. The worker is actually questionable but how do you explain explosions in the basement of the towers? Because if it was a structure failing he would be alive to tell the tale.
I just proved that these trusses couldn't have failed without the I beams failing first, which would need alot higher temperature to make them significantly sag and cause anything to fail. I'm not doubting steel that fails due to pressure has a high amount of energy. But steel which is subject to alot of heat will sag, sag some more, sag more, weaken and either melt on just totally deform from the sagging. Metal under intense heat will not go pop! and released a high amount of pressure.(ie catastrophic failure, as mentioned in the fire test)
I'm not sure, you'll have to ask a pro, or the chap in the video becasue that what he says. One of them says something like, I can't believe this bent without ANY buckling what so ever and the other one says something like, it would take 1000's of degrees to bend a beam this big like this without cracking or buckling. I haven't actually looked it up but I'm sure it's not hard information to find.
Obviously not, but a picture can show what the structre was actually like. The whole official story rests on these trusses weakening, bending, pulling the walls and evetually shearing the "small bolts", which supposidley starts a chain reaction and a dynamic failure causes a total collapse. So, these I beam would be able to withstand considerably higher temps due to their thickness and design, compared to the trusses. I also never mentioned that they could not buckle, it is quite evident from the fire test I linked to that I beams will buckle from office fires, but as also stated in that video, the steel will not catastrophically fail due to office fires. Also, the man in the video is a FEMA official who stats he never, before 9/11, in his 20 years, has seen or heard of a steel framed high rise building collapse because of fire. The towers held their ground after the impacts and I would put my neck on the line and say they would have been able to stand there like that for days, weeks without failing any further if there was no fire involved. I also must mention that the steel in that test is unprotected, we have no evidence that the I beams in the towers were totally unprotected like these were.
I'd have to watch again but I'm sure there was a few rooms in this office so I doubt there was only one beam being tested. Ok, so some of the steel frame was damaged where the plane struck but how can you explain, after seeing the I beams connecting the core to the outer wall and it being such and intense grid of steel I beams, core columns and exterior columns, believe that it just feel into itself without any resistance at all. It seems physically impossible to me, as I have stated many times. I just can't picture it in my head, I can picture the entire building without any material but steel and it seems unbreakable, specially by itself, a lighter portion of itself for that matter, the top section.
Sorry? "There is no such thing as falling with the path of least resistance without a side load from some source." Do you think that steel loosing its strength would be a force to cause it to tip over? The first tower to collapse tipped over, so why didn't it keep going over? Like the image in that link. It seems like a reasonable conclusion to make. Once something, specially that big, begins to move in a certain direction, there's not much that can stop it. Downward force? Huh? Everything, everywhere is constantly under a downward force, gravity and atmospheric pressure, one thing I rember from my science classes. Anyway, the building were designed to withstand this downward force, other wise they wouldn't be standing.
Ok, the first is a firefighter, the second is a former Air Force dude, can't remember his title, and the third is a worker from the towers. And anyway, who are you to say they don't know what they are talking about? The air force lad obviously knows because of how he explains it, the firefighter chap seems to know what he's on about to. The worker is actually questionable but how do you explain explosions in the basement of the towers? Because if it was a structure failing he would be alive to tell the tale.
I just proved that these trusses couldn't have failed without the I beams failing first, which would need alot higher temperature to make them significantly sag and cause anything to fail. I'm not doubting steel that fails due to pressure has a high amount of energy. But steel which is subject to alot of heat will sag, sag some more, sag more, weaken and either melt on just totally deform from the sagging. Metal under intense heat will not go pop! and released a high amount of pressure.(ie catastrophic failure, as mentioned in the fire test)
I'm not sure, you'll have to ask a pro, or the chap in the video becasue that what he says. One of them says something like, I can't believe this bent without ANY buckling what so ever and the other one says something like, it would take 1000's of degrees to bend a beam this big like this without cracking or buckling. I haven't actually looked it up but I'm sure it's not hard information to find.
Last edited by U4IK ST8, .
I can't believe that someone, once again, skips past my important posts, to reply to something which is way off topic, I understand it was brought in and I myself commented but it should be more important for you to respond to the evidence which disproves your theory.
Ok, at first I was going to ignore your comment and ask for you to comment on the evidence I presented but I decided to give my views on some of the things you've said here.
I don't know where you're getting your info from, or you're just expressing your own opinion but Japan and Al Qaeda cannot be compared. And in no way am I suggesting forgiveness in any way for the Japanese. Al Qaeda is a different story, I'm also not forgiving them but, if they were not involved in the attacks how can they be forgiven for something they haven't commited? Also, look up what Al Qaeda actually means and look up some interviews of writers who claim Al Qaeda doesn't even exist. There's a former British soldier who was in Afghanistan, who wrote a book called "Al Qaeda" I believe, who claims it doesn't even exist.
Anyway, less of the off topic subjects and back to 9/11. Have you looked at the evidence? Please do, if you haven't already, take the time to look at it because it disproves claims made by you and also others here.
I never claimed anything other than they knew the Pearl Harbour attack was coming. But they never mentioned that to the people, or the soldiers who were attacked. So, it was an attempt, on their part, the government, to mislead the public to start another war. That's where the comparison is for me. And of course the Tonkin thing is related. Also like Pearl Harbour, it was an attempt to get the US into a war. Another false flag terrorist attack. So it too is related to 9/11. Obviuosly not in your eyes because you think the US government wouldn't kill their own citizens, I can assure you they care not for the average jo, or should I say "useless eater".
Ok, I have read the responses but as I guessed, not one person has commented on the evidence I have shown so I'll go through it again...
1) Evidence of I beams used for the floors which actually held up the floor sections and trusses. http://www.ae911truth.org/docs/wtcconst.php Have a look through these images, particularly the 2nd and 3rd image. This evidence proves that the trusses could not have failed in the fashion we are told. It also shows that the exterior walls were not as seperate from the core as we believed at first. Also, look at the attatchments in my previous post. http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=925595#post925595 This therefore disproves the theory that the trusses caused the initial floors to fail which then, supposidley, crushed the rest of the building. It would also be a much more intense grid of metal beams, so to say it crumbled like it did is ludicrous.
2) Evidence that proves steel frame buildings, even with unprotected steel beams, will not fail catastrophically. Therefore disproveing any theory which says office fires cause the steel frame buildings, towers and WTC7, to collapse. http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_ ... show.php?i=28&hires=1
3) Evidence that proves buildings that collapse follow the path of least resistance, not crush themselves to pieces. http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_ ... show.php?i=29&hires=1
4) Evidence, in the form of eye witnesses, of explosions.They are just some eyewitness reports, I'm sure you can find more.
5) Evidence, audio on video, of explosions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0 (This is from one of Obsolums previous posts) I'm also sure there are more videos with the sounds of explosions.
6) Evidence of high temperatures, to high for any of the fires present in the towers, high enough to bend huge I beams and core columns without cracking or buckling. http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_ ... how.php?i=119&hires=1 Some more evidence of massive temps, enough to fuse concrete and metal(iron+some alluminium). http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_ ... how.php?i=123&hires=1
Now, with that evidence, I think there is a good enough case to say that the towers, and WTC7, did not fall on their own. Enough to disprove the official theory anyway.
1) Evidence of I beams used for the floors which actually held up the floor sections and trusses. http://www.ae911truth.org/docs/wtcconst.php Have a look through these images, particularly the 2nd and 3rd image. This evidence proves that the trusses could not have failed in the fashion we are told. It also shows that the exterior walls were not as seperate from the core as we believed at first. Also, look at the attatchments in my previous post. http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=925595#post925595 This therefore disproves the theory that the trusses caused the initial floors to fail which then, supposidley, crushed the rest of the building. It would also be a much more intense grid of metal beams, so to say it crumbled like it did is ludicrous.
2) Evidence that proves steel frame buildings, even with unprotected steel beams, will not fail catastrophically. Therefore disproveing any theory which says office fires cause the steel frame buildings, towers and WTC7, to collapse. http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_ ... show.php?i=28&hires=1
3) Evidence that proves buildings that collapse follow the path of least resistance, not crush themselves to pieces. http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_ ... show.php?i=29&hires=1
4) Evidence, in the form of eye witnesses, of explosions.They are just some eyewitness reports, I'm sure you can find more.
5) Evidence, audio on video, of explosions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0 (This is from one of Obsolums previous posts) I'm also sure there are more videos with the sounds of explosions.
6) Evidence of high temperatures, to high for any of the fires present in the towers, high enough to bend huge I beams and core columns without cracking or buckling. http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_ ... how.php?i=119&hires=1 Some more evidence of massive temps, enough to fuse concrete and metal(iron+some alluminium). http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_ ... how.php?i=123&hires=1
Now, with that evidence, I think there is a good enough case to say that the towers, and WTC7, did not fall on their own. Enough to disprove the official theory anyway.
Last edited by U4IK ST8, .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYLbfkxjYYc
Look at that collapse and tell me you don't see explosive evidence. Also notice debrit falling from the tower a few seconds before it goes. There's no debrit falling at the beginning of the video. As it collapses you see large ejections of dust, alot of power behind them.
Look at that collapse and tell me you don't see explosive evidence. Also notice debrit falling from the tower a few seconds before it goes. There's no debrit falling at the beginning of the video. As it collapses you see large ejections of dust, alot of power behind them.
Ha funny insident, anyway...
I don't think he is a stupid person and I think he would be more in control than Bush, but this is only speculation so don't quote me on that.
I think they have attacked their own and gotten away with it. It would be impossible, on any other day, for any aircraft, whether it had transponders on or off, to get into Washington airspace undetected and be free to line up with the Pentagon from a fair distance away(see the final maneuver from th ... recorder data on youtube), without getting shot down or some how intercepted. Impossible.
Fair enough, lets move on...
Ah, I get you now.
Even still, the weight would have just transfered to the other columns, it would have stayed standing only for some certain events that we can't agree on. Much of the building at that level? I can't see, nor have I seen, any footage to support that, sorry.
Because it's possible that a 707 might fly into it, with a possible 20,000+ gallons of fuel on board, which might weaken those small bolts. I agree that skyscrapers would have to be a lot lighter at the top than at the bottom, even more reason the top section shouldn't have crushed the whole building.
Now there's a good stretch of the imagination...
Ok, so learn.
Go have a flick through that powerpoint, or bookmark it, because it's factual. No bs in there.Wow.... I have to say those are some spectacular reference images. Truss one is a computer generated image and I don't deny the existance or contruction of the towers without the use of these trusses. Truss 2 is a very nice selective image because a) I can't see underneath the floor and b) becuase I can't see very much of the rest of the structure.
That's a rediculous arguement, sorry, but it is. These trusses come in large, pre-fabricated, sections. Which are then lowered onto these I beams. Even in the second image you link to, you can see where the I beam would be bolted in, right under where the truss is resting. The trusses DID NOT provide the main support for the build. Now I know why you were so cocky at the beginning, you know someone who knows someone who was chief architect, nice. Well ask him for the plans of the towers and see what he says, I'll tell you what he'll say. They're classified. Now that's rediculous if you ask me, why classify that info when it's important for people to see it?
Another rediculous claim. It would be impossible for the trusses to fail before the I beams because the trusses are supported by those I beams. Each section of floor+trusses had around 3 to 4 trusses already attached, I watched the construction video just can't remember how many trusses, and these floor sections would sit in top of the I beams, with 1 I beam between each truss. That's the way I see it anyway. And lets say the fire was hot enough to heat/warp the beams, they still wouldn't catastrophically fail as shown in that fire test video in the powerpoint I linked to.
@ ATC - I 100% agree, that the current government are totally incompetent. Well not everyone. Do you think Dick Cheney is an incompetent person? I think not. Now John McCain is a different kettle of fish and if he gets in the US are doomed. Well either way they're doomed according to Bush. He says "At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning new attacks on our country. Their goal is to bring destruction to our shores that will make September the 11th pale by comparison." Feb 13th 2008 So it's not looking good for American citizens. He sound pretty sure of himself. He's not the only one claiming this either.
EDIT: Also, you say how could they keep a secret so long, well the Vietnam war was started from an event which actually never took place, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, but only rescently this has been declassified. Many, many people died in that war for nothing. I'm not sure why they wanted to do this because I haven't researched but it seems governments have the capability, no matter how incompetent, to withold information from the masses about certain subjects.
Last edited by U4IK ST8, .
It is possible but I think there's a chap who actually rang them, I recall hearing someone talking about that, and they told him he(bin Laden) wasn't a suspect.
That is most definately true and I think this is one of the main reasons terrorist were used as the scapegoats, because there are real terrorists. Bin Ladens are friends of the Bush family so I think they made a deal somewhere along the lines. But that is massive speculation on my part and I'll admit that now. But the two families have crossed paths numerous times in the past.
"Is the world safer?" Not at all, the people are terrified and they are being manipulated by the media every day. I think before the towers even collapsed they had it pinned on bin Laden and when they did collapse the just kept playing it over and over and over again, all the while repotig that bin Laden did it. So people are easily led. Although it's obvious they don't think so.
Exactly, it's unmistakable. Even the fact that the FBI haven't got 9/11 as one of the crimes he's wanted for, should be a red herring. He's on their Top Ten Most Wanted list ffs.
Ok, there's evidence to show that the trusses were not the only thing holding up the floor, which in turn disproves the official story that says the trusses pulled the walls in and the small bolts failed which made the floor collapse, which brought the whole building with it. There's evidence that steel frame building do not collapse from fire. Both delt with in my previous post. There's evidence, in the form of eyewitness reports, of explosions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egIrVyM3FGY There's video evidence of explosions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0 (Thanks to Obsolum for that.)
My responses in bold...
I can't understand how you see bending of facts in there, I just can't. Anyway, have a look at some unbent evidence there and see what you think.
Last edited by U4IK ST8, .
Ok, I'll come back to that at the end...
I was actually refering to WTC7 there, saying buildings closer survived and never collapsed, but #7 collapsed.
I didn't think you were refering to the whole bulding, that would be stupid. There's no way it done 25% of damage to the exterior of the building, I'd give it somewhere between 5 and 10%, if even that.
But fires were not burning throughout the entire floor space, a short while after the planes imapcted there are pictures of a woman standing in the hole the plane just made in the side of the building. Not sure which one, I think it was the first one hit. But there was no raging fire where she was, so it obviously spread, then obviously that steel began to cool and condcut heat from where the fires were. It wouldn't be burning in the same area for long enough to weaken the steel.
First of all a plane is built to be light, so of course they'd use as small a part as possible. So a plane is a bad comparison. A building is built to be tough/rigid/strong so why small bolts?
Second, you know how the towers were built, do you? Nice, so how did you miss those I beams used for the floor? They are quite obvious in a number of images I have rescently seen, so I'm not sure how you "know" how they were built. So who has the facts here? Have a look at some of the images here - http://www.ae911truth.org/docs/wtcconst.php And look at the attachments on this post - http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=925595#post925595
I've kind of covered the trusses but what happenes to the truss directly below which isn't heated up? It just can't hold twice the weight it already is? Anyway, as the trusses didn't actually hold the floors up (I know technically the outer walls are the final load bearing part of the structure we are talking about the floor so that's why I didn't mention that) the I beams you've seen in those photos are and in this next link you'll see steel frame buildings DO NOT catastrophically fail due to fire. I've only gone through a part of this powerpoint but already there's some good information in it - http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_ ... show.php?i=58&hires=1 Some pages to note: 28, 29, 47 is the start of WTC7 and 57 has an interesting video. So now, you asked for some evidence, have a look for yourself.
There's more here - http://www.ae911truth.org/twintowers.php
Last edited by U4IK ST8, .
Aha I see.
Now it's all much clearer. Ok, I had a look, just at the first page and already I get an idea of your thoughts...
First post from you -
Second -
Now... first of all, not jet fuel in the world can melt steel, it's just not possible. An object being heated by fire cannot get hotter than the fire itself. Jet fuel can't burn at hot enough temps to melt steel.
Second, there were plenty of other buildings, some closer than WTC7, which didn't collapse? Some even had the towers fall directly onto them, WTC5 & 6. They suffered massive damage but didn't just fall down. Building 6 had to be demolished to bring it down.
Third, "when a 757 flies into a building, it can destroy 25% of the outer skeletal support structure" now that is a brave statement. 25% is a big part of the towers mate, I don't think it destroyed anywhere near that amount.
Fourth, " for cost-reasons, the steel was not correctly fireproofed and started to warp under the heat, and that the small bolts holding the trusses in place were not designed to withstand any significant amount of lateral sheer force" who decided to cut costs? Anyway, the fires could not have burned hot enough to weaken enough of the steel that there would be a catistrophic failing of almost all columns across the impacted floors. Small bolts, ha nice. Do you think people who designed a building to take a hit from a plane would use small bolts and flimsy trusses for the floors that people would be working on? And you say these small bolts were not designed for lateral forces? These towers would sway in the wind, the tops I'm sure would have alot of lateral force put upon them, how come they never failed in windy condition? Or when the planes first struck?
And finally, these trusses. The whole story balances on these. If I showed you images that proved these trusses were not the final load bearing parts of each floor, what would your reaction be? Because I can tell you now that there was more than just trusses holding up these floors.
@Dan - Nice, I like it!
But, if you have a pile(tower) of 100 cars on top of each other, you take the top 30 up about the height of 2 cars, drop them, will they crush every single car? Please don't tell me you think every car will be crushed?
So where's this engine? Or any engine from the plane that hit the Pentagon. It would be nice to see it.
I think you should go work for NIST then because they are finding it difficult to explain the collapse of the towers, "global collapse" starts and that's all they say. No official report has explained how each floor was crushed to pieces, not 1. Nobody can explain how WTC 7 collapsed. That sounds like a thorough investigation to me.
About your sum there. There are things which happen in a gravity driven pancake collapse, which is what the official story is. Pieces don't get thrown 100's meters from gravity driven collapses, 4inch thick concrete floors do not get pulverised in a pancake collapse. But on 9/11 both of these things happened, twice. Actually 3 times including WTC7.
And I can't believe you say my sources are plainly wrong without showing anything to back it up.
Last edited by U4IK ST8, .
Hmmm, nice personal attack on me there but I'll put that aside for a minute.
None of the things I say here are my own personal thought up ideas. Everything I say here is what I have heard engineers, structural engineers, firemen, professors, policemen and eye witnesses say. All alot more qualified than I am on there certain fields. Don't come here and start bashing me personally 'cos well, it wont do you any good. And because of your tone I will NEVER ask you anything. So, stick around if you like but I wont be looking to you for advice, thanks.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG