# False Flags



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Look it up.

Immoral and cowardly. Victory without honor is not true victory. 
The craving of power and wealth is filthy.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

We can have evidence piled up a mile high (and we do) and you still won't break through the thick wall of blind trust people have in the PTB.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

...takes the average person too much time and effort, or so it seems.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

City Bound said:


> Look it up.
> 
> Immoral and cowardly. Victory without honor is not true victory.
> The craving of power and wealth is filthy.


You might consider victory w/o honor a true victory but I can tell you that defeat with honor is still defeat.

The British considered the American rebels dishonorable because those cowards hid behind trees and shot rather than stand side by side in the open.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Shine said:


> ...takes the average person too much time and effort, or so it seems.


I think it just costs the average person too much discomfort to come to terms with what it means.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

watcher said:


> You might consider victory w/o honor a true victory but I can tell you that defeat with honor is still defeat.
> 
> The British considered the American rebels dishonorable because those cowards hid behind trees and shot rather than stand side by side in the open.


shooting from behind trees at a super power that vastly out numbers, out guns, and out spends you is not cowardly or dishonorable. plotting to and killing your own citizens for the sake of the propaganda to start a war is dishonorable and immoral, especially if that war is just an excuse for a few fat cats to get even fatter with greed and megalomania.

There is honor in death if you live and die without compromising your principles.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I just happened to have watched a fantastic movie this morning that pretty much covers it all.. 

Land of the Blind http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433405/

A great movie.. It's on Youtube if you'd like to watch it...


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

City Bound said:


> shooting from behind trees at a super power that vastly out numbers, out guns, and out spends you is not cowardly or dishonorable. plotting to and killing your own citizens for the sake of the propaganda to start a war is dishonorable and immoral, especially if that war is just an excuse for a few fat cats to get even fatter with greed and megalomania.


Not the point. The redcoats fought their battles with their honor and felt the rebels were dishonorable. What did honor gain them?

There are times when honorable people must do dishonorable things for the greater good. And w/o knowing the full story any judgment will not be complete.

Do I think the government has, is and will do bad things? Sure. Do I trust it? About as much as I trust a rattlesnake, wounded bear or two year old who says he didn't eat the missing candy. Do I think it routinely does things to start wars just to make people money? No, not for a second.




City Bound said:


> There is honor in death if you live and die without compromising your principles.


There were thousands of redcoats who did that in the 1700s, and tens of thousands of Japanese and Germans in the 30s and 40s. Guess what they lost and are still dead.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

watcher said:


> Not the point. The redcoats fought their battles with their honor and felt the rebels were dishonorable. What did honor gain them?
> 
> There are times when honorable people must do dishonorable things for the greater good. And w/o knowing the full story any judgment will not be complete.
> 
> ...


I would add a few more motives and a few other desired results, but I just wonder, why don't you?


----------



## Mrs. Thankful (Dec 4, 2013)

How do you know what to believe? Never heard of false flags before.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> There is honor in death if you live and die without compromising your principles.


ISIS agrees with that philosophy


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Mrs. Thankful said:


> How do you know what to believe? Never heard of false flags before.


example of a false flag op -

Operation Northwoods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods


----------



## Mrs. Thankful (Dec 4, 2013)

I looked it up when I first saw City Boy's post. I'm just wondering how does one know what/who to believe?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> I would add a few more motives and a few other desired results, but I just wonder, why don't you?


Because I was directly addressing the point made in the other post.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

It is believed that the gemans used a false flag to invade poland. they had german soldiers dress as polish soldiers and then attack german civilians living Poland. Public outcry over the offense fueled support of an invasion and it boosted moral.

pearl harbor is considered a false flag by letting he japanese attack in order to let the US enter ww2 and appear as victims simply defending themselves. the act fueled moral and incentive for justice against the Japanese by the common man and women.

A false flag is also used in business and industry. For example the Saudi royalty will bankroll environmental groups in america and instruct them to undermine public support for natural gas or oil production in America. The goal would be to damage American production so the Saudis can increase profits.

another example would be infiltrating a union to ether, weaken it so that the industry does not lose profits, or escalate the union so the industry can move offshore to other countries where the can increase profits and power all while making the union look like the bad guy.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

Mrs. Thankful said:


> I looked it up when I first saw City Boy's post. I'm just wondering how does one know what/who to believe?


 exactly. It is really sickening also because the people who benefit from all this are a handful of elite wealthy people and royalty.


----------



## Mrs. Thankful (Dec 4, 2013)

City Boy When I searched I found this: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/41-admitted-false-flag-attacks.html

It makes me want to know how to know what's "real"


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

politicians can be false flag agents working for foreign governments or global industries. 

Obama could be working for the middle eastern oil industry so he uses his political power to damage the electric coal industry and oil production in America.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Mrs. Thankful said:


> City Boy When I searched I found this: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/41-admitted-false-flag-attacks.html
> 
> It makes me want to know how to know what's "real"


That is the point, be suspicious of everything. You may never know what is real, that is why we need to live by the constitution regardless of supposed terror events or supposed attacks. As you probably know the whole 9/11 thing is in question. What did the government do, pass the patriot act and take away some of our rights. The government spies on us and the NDAA says that even this country is a terror war zone allowing arrest and detainment without trial, possibly forever. This should be unacceptable regardless of whether the attack was real or not. 

Look at the Sandy Hook shooting, a lot of strange stuff there. Yet gun control laws were advanced as a result. Regardless, that should have not happened. There is a concerted effort to dismantle the Constitution and it seems many of these events are used for that purpose, how many are fake, or manipulated for the government's benefit? 

This San Bernardino shooting looks strange. The most glaring is letting the news media into a crime scene to mess it up and the original three shooters, all male now are only two one male one female. Sorry, people can count. Bush said "they hate us for our freedoms, but from the government's actions the government itself hates us for our freedoms. It was said "seeing is believing" but seeing on TV is no longer believing. I'm to the point I find it safer to doubt everything the news media feeds me.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

City Bound said:


> politicians can be false flag agents working for foreign governments or global industries.
> 
> Obama could be working for the middle eastern oil industry so he uses his political power to damage the electric coal industry and oil production in America.


It is supposed that there is a "Shadow Government" in place and that it has been in place for more than a century.


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

9/11 is theorized to be a false flag.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

This is the big problem I have with the proponents of everything that happens these days being a false flag. The people who attack these parents who lost children are sick. 

http://www.vice.com/read/sandy-hook-truthers-what-kind-of-person-calls-a-mass-shooting-a-hoax


> A year and a half after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, Lenny Pozner called to set up a meeting with Wolfgang Halbig. The 68-year-old security consultant was the de facto leader of a community of conspiracy theorists, known as hoaxers, who claimed that the shooting had been staged by the government. To the hoaxers, the 26 victims &#8212; one of whom was Pozner's six-year-old son, Noah &#8212; were fictional characters.
> It was May 28, 2014, and Pozner, an IT consultant, was in Florida on business. He hoped to sit down with Halbig at a coffee shop near his home in Orlando, Florida. He wanted to talk to him face-to-face about Noah, who was his only son and never far from his mind. On December 14, 2012, the day of the shooting, Pozner had been the one to drop Noah off at school. As they drove, they listened to "Gangnam Style," Noah's favorite song. When they arrived, Pozner said, "Have a fun day," and watched as his child headed inside, fiddling with his backpack and brown jacket.
> Ever since his son's death, Pozner had been dealing with the hoaxers. It was his habit to regularly post photos of Noah*, *a happy boy with soft blue eyes and a wide smile,on his Google Plus page. He would put up pictures of Noah hugging his twin sister, or playing on the beach, or showing off the tooth he lost less than two weeks before he was murdered. The hoaxers would see these images and offer comments: "Where's Noah going to die next?" read one.Another commenter, seemingly believing that Pozner had been recruited to help perpetuate the myth of the shooting, asked, "How much do you get paid?"


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> ISIS agrees with that philosophy


So do I.
Death is inevitable and part of life. Being forced to change my mind or cowering will not prevent it. Only postpone it temporarily, maybe.
I prefer my own course.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

City Bound said:


> exactly. It is really sickening also because the people who benefit from all this are a handful of elite wealthy people and royalty.


Straight up economically, they benefit more because they have more invested. How many thousands of out of work average Joes went to work in factories and shipyards during WWII? Even during the 'evil' Vietnam war there were thousands of people making their livings in factories that supplied goods to the military. 

I have stated before there are those who immorally and even illegally benefit during times of war but the same can be said about peaceful times.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Mrs. Thankful said:


> I looked it up when I first saw City Boy's post. I'm just wondering how does one know what/who to believe?


Good question. My suggestion is to take the time to look at the historical data available now through FOI, keep your skepticism intact when watching media reports. Don't consider any source "reliable" simply because it's a major network and consider the government, by default, the least reliable source of all.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

watcher said:


> Because I was directly addressing the point made in the other post.


I meant why don't you believe government does this?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> This is the big problem I have with the proponents of everything that happens these days being a false flag. The people who attack these parents who lost children are sick.
> 
> http://www.vice.com/read/sandy-hook-truthers-what-kind-of-person-calls-a-mass-shooting-a-hoax


There's no need to attack anyone to question this. If simply questioning and investigating it is being called an "attack", I sincerely object. That doesn't make sense if we are to be able to peruse the truth wherever it leads.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> I meant why don't you believe government does this?


Let me make it clear, I believe all governments use all kinds of deception and sometimes for "bad" purposes. What I don't believe is the US government commonly uses false flags and in the cases it has used them, it was not to increase the wealth of a few individuals (or even a lot of individuals).

Contrary to popular belief war isn't that good of a way to make money. For one thing there is always that chance your side will lose. Now the threat or fear of war is another story.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Mrs. Thankful said:


> I looked it up when I first saw City Boy's post. I'm just wondering how does one know what/who to believe?


Just remember Occam's Razor: Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

Its true that unless you have proven something yourself you must 'assume' a fact is actually a true fact but overall the simplest answer usually the correct one.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

World Trade Center Building 7 is the sore toe that points to a false flag on 9/11 

"NIST&#8217;s investigation absolutely begins and ends in the realm of computer simulation, manipulating the numbers to try and achieve the observed conditions, which they couldn&#8217;t even do, regardless of this fact, a computer simulation does not constitute an explanation and computer modelling is, at best, only as good as the input it receives and NIST will not give us their numbers.
They never even bothered to fully model the structure.


And as far as the &#8220;withheld data due to national security&#8221; goes, until it is known and is in the public domain, it will be impossible for outsiders to know exactly what it supports, as it is right now, the NIST report can be considered a work of science fiction
Their findings cannot be replicated or falsified due to the withholding of data and so if anyone outside of NIST believes what they say, they believe it on pure faith.

The acceleration of gravity in New York City is 32.159 ft/s2. WTC7 had 2.25 seconds of literal freefall, this is equivalent to approximately 8 stories of fall in which the falling section of the building encountered zero resistance. 

The collapse was complete in 6.5 seconds. Free-fall time in a vacuum, from Building 7&#8217;s roof is 5.96 seconds

For any object to fall at gravitational acceleration, there can be nothing below it that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the potential energy of the object would be converted to motion and so would not be found falling at gravitational acceleration (where did every single structural supporting columns go, instantly, at the exact same time?)


There&#8217;s no exception to that rule, those are the conditions that must exist for gravitational acceleration to occur for the entirety of the duration of the time it occurs, this is basic Newtonian physical principles.


You either agree with this very basic concept, or you need to start making a case for a new realm of science that has never been witnessed before."

http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-...etely-ridiculous-and-based-purely-on-fantasy/


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

watcher said:


> Let me make it clear, I believe all governments use all kinds of deception and sometimes for "bad" purposes. What I don't believe is the US government commonly uses false flags and in the cases it has used them, it was not to increase the wealth of a few individuals (or even a lot of individuals).
> 
> Contrary to popular belief war isn't that good of a way to make money. For one thing there is always that chance your side will lose. Now the threat or fear of war is another story.


I would agree that it isn't just to make money for certain people, but I'm not sure I think the motives are ever something more noble than that, anyway....

The result of a false flag doesn't have to be war, either....it can be legislation and/or turning the tide of public opinion.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

watcher said:


> Just remember Occam's Razor: Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
> 
> Its true that unless you have proven something yourself you must 'assume' a fact is actually a true fact but overall the simplest answer usually the correct one.


True that, but the simplest answer isn't necessarily based on taking the official story at its word. I think it's all too easy to confuse the "simplest" answer with the Easiest answer....


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> World Trade Center Building 7 is the sore toe that points to a false flag on 9/11
> 
> "NISTâs investigation absolutely begins and ends in the realm of computer simulation, manipulating the numbers to try and achieve the observed conditions, which they couldnât even do, regardless of this fact, a computer simulation does not constitute an explanation and computer modelling is, at best, only as good as the input it receives and NIST will not give us their numbers.
> They never even bothered to fully model the structure.
> ...


Sigh. . . When a massive weight of the debris hit the floors the time between impact and failure would be so small you'd need some very precise equipment to measure it. So floors falling in what seems to be free fall makes sense.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> Sigh. . . When a massive weight of the debris hit the floors the time between impact and failure would be so small you'd need some very precise equipment to measure it. So floors falling in what seems to be free fall makes sense.


You forgot to add: "with a synchronicity so closely timed that it appeared as if it was done by a professional team with explosives"

Remember occam's razor? Which supposition has more assumptions? You would have to assume that all of the supports for each of the 8 floors gave way at exactly the same moment for us to have seen the resulting fall of that building into a 3 story pile of debris that you and everyone else saw with the collapse of WTC 7. There must be thousands, if that few, of assumptions behind NIST's conclusions. Only a couple well reasoned assumptions with the Demo theory - that it was brought down by insiders with explosives. Dis NIST test for explosives? What was their reasons for NOT testing for explosives?

Remember, NIST said that a single support beam initially walked off of it's seat. A single initial failure that allowed for a near perfect collapse of a building in the exact same manner as a building that has been demo'ed - go figure.

Occam's Razor indeed.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hycank4AxBo[/ame]


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> You forgot to add: "with a synchronicity so closely timed that it appeared as if it was done by a professional team with explosives"
> 
> Remember occam's razor? Which supposition has more assumptions? You would have to assume that all of the supports for each of the 8 floors gave way at exactly the same moment for us to have seen the resulting fall of that building into a 3 story pile of debris that you and everyone else saw with the collapse of WTC 7. There must be thousands, if that few, of assumptions behind NIST's conclusions. Only a couple well reasoned assumptions with the Demo theory - that it was brought down by insiders with explosives. Dis NIST test for explosives? What was their reasons for NOT testing for explosives?
> 
> ...


Care to tell me how you use explosives to cut the steel supports but don't cause enough of a blast wave to take out the windows? Watch the video closely and tell me if you see a single window blow out.

Also do you know anything about explosives other than what you've seen on TV or in the movies? You can't take a fist sized piece of explosive and cut an I beam made from structural steel. Some where on the board I have posted the approximate weight of, IIRC, C4 it would take to one end of an I-beam. It was quite a bit.

On top of the shear volume and weight of explosive they would have to be specifically place on the beam and in contact with it. Then they would have to be detonated and done so in a specific order. 

I've gone over and over this in other threads but I'm willing to do it all again if necessary.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

BlackFeather said:


> That is the point, be suspicious of everything. You may never know what is real, that is why we need to live by the constitution regardless of supposed terror events or supposed attacks. As you probably know the whole 9/11 thing is in question. What did the government do, pass the patriot act and take away some of our rights. The government spies on us and the NDAA says that even this country is a terror war zone allowing arrest and detainment without trial, possibly forever. This should be unacceptable regardless of whether the attack was real or not.
> 
> Look at the Sandy Hook shooting, a lot of strange stuff there. Yet gun control laws were advanced as a result. Regardless, that should have not happened. There is a concerted effort to dismantle the Constitution and it seems many of these events are used for that purpose, how many are fake, or manipulated for the government's benefit?
> 
> This San Bernardino shooting looks strange. The most glaring is letting the news media into a crime scene to mess it up and the original three shooters, all male now are only two one male one female. Sorry, people can count. Bush said "they hate us for our freedoms, but from the government's actions the government itself hates us for our freedoms. It was said "seeing is believing" but seeing on TV is no longer believing. I'm to the point I find it safer to doubt everything the news media feeds me.


I trust no MSM. Back at the time of the James Byrd trial, I was working in Jasper Tx. There was one restaurant there that was decent and not fast food. The reporters were there in droves at this place. Now, I didn't see the trial but this is what I heard said by MANY mainstream anchors. 

"I cant believe they are going to prosecute Shawn for murder. He tried to get them to stop and they told him that if he didn't help he would be chained next to him. Then they beat him and broke his foot and he still walked to the police station for three hours and turned them all in." 

But on the news that night they cut him no such slack. Notice that Shawn Berry only got life in prison instead of instead of death row. So there has to more to it than what we get in the media. Cant say what that is for sure just relating it as I saw it.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Yeah. I guess your right. You cannot bring down a steel structure using thermite, possibly thermate [burns at 4000degrees F] when used in cutter charges which do not explode but burn much like a very fast sparkler. But what troubles me is that NIST did not look for explosives in the dust around the WTC complex. Even after someone in Finland, who had some of the WTC complex dust sent to him and he analyzed it, he found military grade nano-thermite. NIST just said - "No you didn't and that's that." - Do you know of any tests done by NIST searching for nano-thermite particles or other explosive residue in the dust of the WTC Complex. If so, please share. All I can find is that NIST said there was no need to test for explosives. Curious, that...


How? Do you know who Marvin Bush, Securacom and Stratasec is and what was his job prior to 9/2001?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by City Bound View Post
> exactly. It is really sickening also because the *people who benefit* from all this are a handful of elite wealthy people and royalty.


The conspiracy theory sites benefit from all those who fall for and parrot the hype


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The conspiracy theory sites benefit from all those who fall for and parrot the hype


Do you have any proof that NIST searched for any explosive residues?

I am not saying for a fact that they were used but I know from what I know is that a building could not fall down in that fashion from a non-symmetric event. The culmination of everything that had to happen in that disaster [WTC7] would be so far out of the scope of "Yeah, it could a happened" that it is unimaginable that anyone would not be outraged that a new investigation would not be called for. I mean, just watch the video, it goes down as if something at the bottom is disappearing, not being crushed, disappearing. What is the most logical thing to understanding how "Supporting Structures" are disappearing? You tell me.

If the building would have fallen over, you would not be hearing a peep out of me. But not with it falling straight down into it's footprint leaving 3 stories of rubble, nothing of any size still connected.

Last oddity about this event. Why was there molten steel/iron in the basement of the three buildings that collapsed on 9/11 measuring over 2500 degrees for over three months? What could generate that much heat for a period of over three months?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Shine said:


> Do you have any proof that NIST searched for any explosive residues?
> 
> I am not saying for a fact that they were used but I know from what I know is that a building could not fall down in that fashion from a non-symmetric event. The culmination of everything that had to happen in that disaster [WTC7] would be so far out of the scope of "Yeah, it could a happened" that it is unimaginable that anyone would not be outraged that a new investigation would not be called for. I mean, just watch the video, it goes down as if something at the bottom is disappearing, not being crushed, disappearing. What is the most logical thing to understanding how "Supporting Structures" are disappearing? You tell me.
> 
> ...


Not an expert in any of this but as FF I have many friends on Texas Task Force 1 that went to the trade center and stayed for a month. They used rovers with cameras installed to go into the rubble and search. they found whole rooms intact including the US Customs holding pen. In there were drugs, money and weapons including bombs. Non had detonated as the room was totally intact. They found people at their desks, deceased of course from the heat sitting there like nothing had even happened. There were many such rooms like that. 

heat can stay underground for a long time. I was on a forest fire in my area that kept "re-kindling" (hate that term) for two months. The Texas Forest Service said it was burning roots underground past the plow lines and re-starting outside the lines. Fire takes just heat, fuel and O2 to burn. As long as you have that you have fire. For the month that TTF1 was there they did not monitor any temp on anything. They were crawling into the rooms they could get into. Many rooms they did get into. If it was a bomb I don't think that would be possible. 

Could be wrong as I wasn't there.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Could be wrong as I wasn't there.


Agreed. All I seek is a non-partisan investigation. Why would they, if a steel structured building had never collapsed from fire before this date, would they not want to put this event under a microscope to find out the exact causes, I cannot understand. But they shipped almost all of the debris off to China with little to no investigation.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> Yeah. I guess your right. You cannot bring down a steel structure using thermite, possibly thermate [burns at 4000degrees F] when used in cutter charges which do not explode but burn much like a very fast sparkler.


You failed to answer my question. Do you or do you not have ANY first hand experience with and/or knowledge about explosives? Have you ever primed a block of TNT? Used detcord to set off a series of C4 charges? Ever used a demo card to calculate the size of a breaching charge? Or is your 'knowledge' based on the fact you seen movies where people blow an entire house into toothpicks with nothing but a hand grenade or put a man sized hole in a reinforced concrete wall with a block of explosives the size of a pack of smokes?

Thermite takes TIME, a very long time when compared to explosives, to cut steel and it takes even more of it than explosives. It also has to be held in place until its burned through. The time factor works against your 'it fell at free fall speeds' because it would take at least a second (I'd say longer) to cut each I-beam which would mean the building would take much longer to fall. Then there's the fact that cutting steel with thermite results in a lot of light, sparks and molten steel which I would think would have been visible through at least one of the windows in the video.

If thermite could take down buildings as quickly and easily as you claim why in the world do private companies still jump through all the hoops involved in buying, storing and using explosives? AFAIK, there are no federal controls or regulations on thermite, other than DoT hazmat regs for the transport of a flammable solid. Companies could save a lot of money and headaches if they switched from commercial explosives to thermite so I think if it worked as well as you seem to think they'd switched long ago.

You still have the problem of how and/or when all these charges were set. It would take hundreds if not thousands of man hours to place the charges. They would have to be placed directly on the steel beams which would require cutting into walls and floors. Where are the reports of people who were in and out of the building in the days and weeks before 9/11 talking about all the extra the building repair or maintenance being done on all the WTC buildings at that time?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Woolieface said:


> There's no need to attack anyone to question this. If simply questioning and investigating it is being called an "attack", I sincerely object. That doesn't make sense if we are to be able to peruse the truth wherever it leads.


Read the article.  I have no problem with people believing whatever they like. But calling the parents of a dead child and harassing them is sick. Posting pictures of their dead child on the internet with slurs and insults is sick. Stalking them in real life and online, posting their personal information and encouraging people to go to their homes, etc. is just evil. 

Can you imagine losing your 6 yo son to a horrible massacre. Creating a memorial website for him and then having people come on post death threats to you and the rest of your family because you are "liars", "crisis actors", paid off by the government, your son never existed or was just an actor or is still alive and well? How would you respond to that?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> Do you have any proof that NIST searched for any explosive residues?
> 
> I am not saying for a fact that they were used but I know from what I know is that a building could not fall down in that fashion from a non-symmetric event. The culmination of everything that had to happen in that disaster [WTC7] would be so far out of the scope of "Yeah, it could a happened" that it is unimaginable that anyone would not be outraged that a new investigation would not be called for. I mean, just watch the video, it goes down as if something at the bottom is disappearing, not being crushed, disappearing. What is the most logical thing to understanding how "Supporting Structures" are disappearing? You tell me.


Down load the video and watch it frame by frame. I think the view is in there if not you can find it on line. You are looking at the building from the side and can see the upper floor windows on the left hand side. If you watch very closely you will notice something. As the building starts to move you will see the those windows go from dark to light from top to bottom THEN the roof starts to cave downward. What is happening, IMO, is the floor is dropping away which allows you to be able to see completely through the building.

It starts at the top, you can see the roof falling in. Again in slow mo you can see that it buckles from the top until at one point you can see the lower middle of the building bulge out and fail. 




Shine said:


> If the building would have fallen over, you would not be hearing a peep out of me. But not with it falling straight down into it's footprint leaving 3 stories of rubble, nothing of any size still connected.


It fell the way it did because of how it was constructed. The WTC was able to have open floors because the floor beams were not supported by the standard 'box on box' steel skeleton. There were central support columns and an external skeleton. (If you look at pics of the debris of the WTC you can see parts of this external skeleton still standing.) The floor beams were connected on one end to the central supports and the other end to the external skeleton. When one floor failed the external skeleton lost support and was able to bow. This put way more stress on the remaining floor beams than normal. Add to that stress the impact of tons of debris from the floor above it falling 10 feet. That caused the next floor to fail. Now the external skeleton had even less support and would bow even more and the third floor was hit with the debris of TWO floors falling 10 feet.

Now the inter columns and the skeleton did, or didn't do depending on your POV, something else. They did not fail instantly which means as a floor failed they worked as guides to funnel the debris more or less straight down. 

After so many floors had failed the columns nor skeleton could support their own weigh and fell. They fell inward because the floor supports below the failure point were pulling as as they were being pulled free. 

Think a bunch of barbell weights glued on a vertical bar and you drop one on the top. The impact would break the glue holding the second weigh in place and both weights would then fall on the third. Then all three would hit the fourth. The bar in the middle would guide them straight down and as the number of weights grew the amount of time the glue held after impact would be smaller and smaller. W/o some very high speed and precise equipment you would not even be able to tell the glue held for any amount of time.




Shine said:


> Last oddity about this event. Why was there molten steel/iron in the basement of the three buildings that collapsed on 9/11 measuring over 2500 degrees for over three months? What could generate that much heat for a period of over three months?


Burning stuff in a low oxygen atmosphere. Ever read about peat or underground coal fires? There's an underground coal fire in Pennsylvania which has been burning since 1962, yeah that's 53 years and its still burning. The numbers say the temps underground range from 1,000 to 3,000 degrees F.

Yeah, I've researched this a lot and I have found nothing which causes me to have even the smallest cause to think it was anything more than the result of natural physics from the aircraft strikes which caused any of the damage at the WTC.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> Agreed. All I seek is a non-partisan investigation. Why would they, if a steel structured building had never collapsed from fire before this date, would they not want to put this event under a microscope to find out the exact causes, I cannot understand. But they shipped almost all of the debris off to China with little to no investigation.


As I have pointed out the reasons this building failed when no other steel structured building never had before was because it was build differently than any other steel structured building that had burned.

On 7 NOV 40 the Tacoma Narrows Bridge aka "Galloping Gertie" failed and that failure was blamed on high winds. Suspension bridges were first built in the 1800s and them had ever failed due to high winds before plus I don't think anyone checked the debris for explosive residue. Using the logic of "it had never happened before", based on those facts it must have been some kind of false flag event.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> You failed to answer my question. Do you or do you not have ANY first hand experience with and/or knowledge about explosives? Have you ever primed a block of TNT? Used detcord to set off a series of C4 charges? Ever used a demo card to calculate the size of a breaching charge? Or is your 'knowledge' based on the fact you seen movies where people blow an entire house into toothpicks with nothing but a hand grenade or put a man sized hole in a reinforced concrete wall with a block of explosives the size of a pack of smokes?
> 
> Thermite takes TIME, a very long time when compared to explosives, to cut steel and it takes even more of it than explosives. It also has to be held in place until its burned through. The time factor works against your 'it fell at free fall speeds' because it would take at least a second (I'd say longer) to cut each I-beam which would mean the building would take much longer to fall. Then there's the fact that cutting steel with thermite results in a lot of light, sparks and molten steel which I would think would have been visible through at least one of the windows in the video.
> 
> ...


You ask: You failed to answer my question. Do you or do you not have ANY first hand experience with and/or knowledge about explosives?

My answer: Loading rounds, removing stumps - yes, I have experience with Explosives. I also have studied Engineering, received an associates degree therein, with honors.

The rest of your first paragraph has no bearing on this particular conversation, it might be considered a distraction as it has no bearing on the issue at hand. 

I have not nor has any portion of the information that I am in possession of seeks to indicate that the towers were brought down with explosives.

I have shown you a building that appears to fall as if brought down by a professional team. You continue to digress..

Thermite takes time? you are being disingenuous here. Establish your premise of "Time" - we can go forward with your base understanding.

Explain to me the duration of the operation of thermate, or even better, let us consider the operation of nano-thermate as someone is suggesting that there is some of this residue within the WTC complex.

Do you have any studies to refute this? 

The simple answer is that you fail to use the technology that is in place today and that there is a substantial amount of the technology that was used in 1999 to take down a building and was available to take down a building in 2001. You act like it was not a known technology to use cutter charges. You act like nano-thermite was not present within the WTC complex.

I do not have a problem establishing the period of time where these buildings might have been compromised, what was the three weekend refit in WTC 1 and WTC 2? Power downs were there was no camera coverage and no secure doors operating? It happened the first three weeks of July 2001. Who was the person in charge of security?


I will finally state that you have NOT gathered the information that is available and tried to process it in a manner that would provide you with a reasonable understanding of what is and what was.

Explain to all of us following this thread, how a 47 story building can fall because of 14% damage to the south side of that structure, and several fires within that building, and have that collapse happen with 2.25 seconds of freefall, and then finally, have that building fall within it's foot print with only 3 stories of debris.

For get the rest of my reply, just answer the last paragraph.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Explain to all of us following this thread, how a 47 story building can fall because of *14% damage* to the south side of that structure, and several fires within that building, and have that collapse happen with 2.25 seconds of *freefall,* and then finally, have that building *fall within it's foot print* with only 3 stories of debris.


It's been answered multiple times before, and you ignore it, so what's the point of repeating it all in vain?

You just continue to parrot the same old buzzwords and misinformation you read on the hysteria sites.

https://youtu.be/uFJa9WUy5QI

[YOUTUBE]<iframe width="315" height="192" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uFJa9WUy5QI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## City Bound (Jan 24, 2009)

watcher has a point. the framing of the wts was poorly designed and constructed. the builder cut corners with materials. 

if I am not mistaken the law in nyc is that a city contract has to go to the lowest bidder. We had a problem with our fire trucks because of this. the doors on the fire trucks were flying off the hinges when the trucks made fast turns. 

Sure, a fire might not be able to fall the towers but a massive missile might and that is what those planes were, exploding missiles.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> Read the article.  I have no problem with people believing whatever they like. But calling the parents of a dead child and harassing them is sick. Posting pictures of their dead child on the internet with slurs and insults is sick. Stalking them in real life and online, posting their personal information and encouraging people to go to their homes, etc. is just evil.
> 
> Can you imagine losing your 6 yo son to a horrible massacre. Creating a memorial website for him and then having people come on post death threats to you and the rest of your family because you are "liars", "crisis actors", paid off by the government, your son never existed or was just an actor or is still alive and well? How would you respond to that?


Stalking people is a little sick no matter the reason. I don't think this represents the actions of the vast majority of people questioning it... I even have to wonder if it was something done, reported and/or overblown just to give that impression of people looking for an answer.

To answer the question.. on an emotional level I wouldn't be dealing well at all with even slightly annoying people, but on a rational level I still understand how things work and the lengths that they go to keeping people from questioning anything. I would probably surmise it was a product of the bs we're fed by the government every day.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

watcher said:


> You failed to answer my question. Do you or do you not have ANY first hand experience with and/or knowledge about explosives? Have you ever primed a block of TNT? Used detcord to set off a series of C4 charges? Ever used a demo card to calculate the size of a breaching charge? Or is your 'knowledge' based on the fact you seen movies where people blow an entire house into toothpicks with nothing but a hand grenade or put a man sized hole in a reinforced concrete wall with a block of explosives the size of a pack of smokes?
> 
> Thermite takes TIME, a very long time when compared to explosives, to cut steel and it takes even more of it than explosives. It also has to be held in place until its burned through. The time factor works against your 'it fell at free fall speeds' because it would take at least a second (I'd say longer) to cut each I-beam which would mean the building would take much longer to fall. Then there's the fact that cutting steel with thermite results in a lot of light, sparks and molten steel which I would think would have been visible through at least one of the windows in the video.
> 
> ...


How do you feel about the hundreds of professionals (architects, engineers, etc...) who do believe it was a controlled demolition?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> How do you feel about the hundreds of professionals (architects, engineers, etc...) who do believe it was a controlled demolition?


I've never seen anything *credible* that proves they even exist.

Clinton couldn't keep Lewinski a secret, and that only took two people, yet some want to imply GW could orchestrate the entire 9/11 event without anyone being able to prove it when it would require hundreds to remain silent


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> https://youtu.be/uFJa9WUy5QI


The final statement from your video proof: "Why is 7 WTC the only tall steel building in history to collapse due to fires alone? It's the only one to burn uncontrolled, for 7 hours. Its really that simple"

In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. 


In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing

[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif][FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for *two days*. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing

http://www.fireengineering.com/arti...-disasters-when-will-we-learn-our-lesson.html

Wonder why they would try to get us to believe that no other steel building had burned for as long as WTC 7 did and then, after the fire went out, was still standing?

Wonder why, with this being the first building that had collapsed in the fashion that it did, that no one wanted to really understand what actually happened?

Wonder why their computer representation of the collapse stopped after the first few moments when the complete computer representation from the point that they stopped shows the exterior twisting in a fashion that did not match the actual falling of the building.

Wonder why NIST will not provide the input data for the simulation that they provide as proof?

If you watch their representation of how the building collapsed from the inside out, to accept it requires the acceptance of the process called "The suspension of deniability" which requires that you accept their explanation without question. What if I want to question it?
[/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've never seen anything *credible* that proves they even exist.


You see, its rampant. All NIST has to do is ignore things like free fall speeds which are impossible with regards to an unplanned building collapse and that "We don't need to look for explosive residue because we say that there is none"[without any tests being done] and people start using their methodologies to be content with pulling "facts" out of thin air.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

More of the same, as always.
I told you it would be pointless


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> More of the same, as always.
> I told you it would be pointless


You are right. Deleted earlier post. Pointless.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Shine said:


> Yeah. I guess your right. You cannot bring down a steel structure using thermite, possibly thermate [burns at 4000degrees F] when used in cutter charges which do not explode but burn much like a very fast sparkler. But what troubles me is that NIST did not look for explosives in the dust around the WTC complex. Even after someone in Finland, who had some of the WTC complex dust sent to him and he analyzed it, he found military grade nano-thermite. NIST just said - "No you didn't and that's that." - Do you know of any tests done by NIST searching for nano-thermite particles or other explosive residue in the dust of the WTC Complex. If so, please share. All I can find is that NIST said there was no need to test for explosives. Curious, that...
> 
> 
> How? Do you know who Marvin Bush, Securacom and Stratasec is and what was his job prior to 9/2001?


You can create those nano partials by flying an aluminum airplane into a building with steel and adding jet fuel and by converting mechanical energy into heat energy.
So the nano argument is a false flag.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Shine said:


> Last oddity about this event. Why was there molten steel/iron in the basement of the three buildings that collapsed on 9/11 measuring over 2500 degrees for over three months? What could generate that much heat for a period of over three months?


This proves to me thermite was not used because thermite would make a narrow focused cut and would not melt a beam, unless you were using tons of the stuff.
It is obvious the hot beams were from heat that was converted from mechanical energy to heat energy.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

OffGridCooker said:


> You can create those nano partials by flying an aluminum airplane into a building with steel and adding jet fuel and by converting mechanical energy into heat energy.
> So the nano argument is a false flag.


Really... That's all you have to do to produce crystalline structured conglomerate metal compounds in a uniform state at a nano scales? Wow.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

OffGridCooker said:


> This proves to me thermite was not used because thermite would make a narrow focused cut and would not melt a beam, unless you were using tons of the stuff.
> It is obvious the hot beams were from heat that was converted from mechanical energy to heat energy.



Nothing is certain, that's why I continue to ask. Do you have any reason for the hot spots to exist for such a period? Also, one application for using nano-thermite is to add it to a resin and use it as if it were "paint". Those painted surfaces, when placed into a flammable environment would then be ignited thereby increasing the temperature of the item that had been painted with such a compound.

Supposedly there had been maintenance over three weekends in July to the main core elevators [one of the areas where the "maintenance teams" had been active]


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Found this, still trying to track it's origin down, thought I would post it. Will rerun a number of shots from a different angle to see if they too show the flashes...

https://www.facebook.com/thepeoplesvoicetv/videos/434848976662549/


Not finding any other video from that height or angle... still looking.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> The final statement from your video proof: "Why is 7 WTC the only tall steel building in history to collapse due to fires alone? It's the only one to burn uncontrolled, for 7 hours. Its really that simple"
> 
> In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours.
> 
> ...


Unless the buildings in the examples you gave were constructed the same way as the WTC you are comparing apples to bananas. I explained in great detail why the WTC failed due to fire and why it failed the way it did. You just refuse to accept facts. 


[YOUTUBE]bMZ-nkYr46w[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

No, I would submit that a reasonably intelligent, rational person, after watching WTC 7 collapse in it's foot print, with a total height of rubble totaling around 3 stories, when it was a 47 story building to have an "uuunnnh???" moment.

The collapse was a synchronized event, it could not happen in the fashion that it did if it was not synchronized by some concerted actions. If there had have been one beam that walked off of it's footing and then caused some sort of un-synchronized cascade of failures, then the building would have tumbled, there are no ifs, ands, or buts.

But... I do thank you for giving me my soapbox.

The events of this day changed the world, and possibly might have taken the sympathy of the people of the world, when directed at our country, and heaped an immense weight of scorn on us, the people who failed to keep a close tab on those that they granted the authority to guide and guard us.

I value all innocent lives. Because of this event, how many innocent humans have lost their lives by our [collective, yours and mine] hand?

Bush was shown on film after Andrew Card told him of the second attack. Is protecting the President not more important than scaring the children at that school by an emergent evacuation and the securing of Bush by the team that was there to protect him? Why did they remain there, in a location that had been public information, why did the Secret Service not secure the President? 


Cheney evidently had control over the situation with regards to the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. Question, did the Pentagon have AA defenses already in place way before the day of this happening? What is your logic, when you listen to Cheney being told - 50 miles out, 30 miles out, 10 miles out... "Do your orders stand???" 

"YES MY ORDERS STILL STAND!!! Have you heard any change to those orders???"

What is your opinion of that particular dialog?

My goodness, there is more than enough to this situation to cast suspicion upon the whole event and, well, let me just ask: Do you support the Findings of the Committee that was established to find out all of the answers? Or do you think that their findings are suspect at some level?

Last edit: Yes, you have tried to show me that this was indeed an attack that we could not possibly have expected nor defended against. You do not give me an understanding of how our elected officials, few in number, could go official and say that there was no way that this type of event could have been anticipated when, in fact, our military, on THAT day, was drilling to prevent against that EXACT SAME TYPE OF ATTACK. Did the officials lie or were they unaware of that particular live drill on that SAME day?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Shine said:


> No, I would submit that a reasonably intelligent, rational person, after watching WTC 7 collapse in it's foot print, with a total height of rubble totaling around 3 stories, when it was a 47 story building to have an "uuunnnh???" moment.
> 
> The collapse was a synchronized event, it could not happen in the fashion that it did if it was not synchronized by some concerted actions. If there had have been one beam that walked off of it's footing and then caused some sort of un-synchronized cascade of failures, then the building would have tumbled, there are no ifs, ands, or buts.
> 
> ...


Well...you will never know.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *Cheney evidently had control over the situation* with regards to the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. Question, did the Pentagon have AA defenses already in place way before the day of this happening? What is your logic, when you listen to Cheney being told - 50 miles out, 30 miles out, 10 miles out... "Do your orders stand???"
> 
> "YES MY ORDERS STILL STAND!!! Have you heard any change to those orders???"
> 
> *What is your opinion* of that particular dialog?


That you'll believe anything you read on the internet conspiracy sites


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That you'll believe anything you read on the internet conspiracy sites


Attacking the messenger again, I see. The message must be somewhat unsettling to you...


Why are you against another investigation?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That you'll believe anything you read on the internet conspiracy sites


Norman Mineta's testimony

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlM8Sui6-X0[/ame]


You seem to be awful quick with your deflections that my information comes from "internet conspiracy sites" - weren't you aware of the testimonies that were offered so that we can get to the bottom of the "attack" and "attackers"?

P.S. - I haven't heard anyone addressing the Air Defenses that were in place at the Pentagon. This is a significant nail in the coffin of the government's contentions with regards to Cheney's Stand Down Order.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Shine said:


> Nothing is certain, that's why I continue to ask. Do you have any reason for the hot spots to exist for such a period? Also, one application for using nano-thermite is to add it to a resin and use it as if it were "paint". Those painted surfaces, when placed into a flammable environment would then be ignited thereby increasing the temperature of the item that had been painted with such a compound.
> 
> Supposedly there had been maintenance over three weekends in July to the main core elevators [one of the areas where the "maintenance teams" had been active]


A layer of nano paint would not have enough energy to bring those beams up to barbecue temps, let alone melt them.
Unless it was plutonium paint, now that would do it! Did anybody check the radiation levels?
Did they disclose the radiation readings? Not that I saw, You know that is suspicious.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> Unless the buildings in the examples you gave were constructed the same way as the WTC you are comparing apples to bananas. I explained in great detail why the WTC failed due to fire and why it failed the way it did. You just refuse to accept facts.


OK. This clip suggests that the floors that were impacted by the airliners crashing into them were on fire and then it indicates that the fires within the floors reached an estimated 1800 degrees F. Did I hear that correctly?

You are aware of how much heat is necessary to melt steel, correct?

Please elaborate upon the video below with your thoughts...

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE[/ame]


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

OffGridCooker said:


> A layer of nano paint would not have enough energy to bring those beams up to barbecue temps, let alone melt them.
> Unless it was plutonium paint, now that would do it! Did anybody check the radiation levels?
> Did they disclose the radiation readings? Not that I saw, You know that is suspicious.


While I do not have any information regarding the radiation readings it would be quite a divergence from what I understand to suggest that this event was in any way brought about by the use of any nuclear devices.

Am I understanding that it is your suggestion that this is the reason for the molten metal and the elevated temperatures in the Basements of the collapsed buildings?

Due to the limited amount of information that is provided to the public regarding nano-thermite, I can only surmise what the effect of "painting" it on would be. After researching thermite and its uses, and understanding that nanothermite is essentially "super-thermite" the conclusion that this application could have contributed to the failure of the structures seems quite reasonable.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Shine said:


> While I do not have any information regarding the radiation readings it would be quite a divergence from what I understand to suggest that this event was in any way brought about by the use of any nuclear devices.


You are just trying to divert attention away from the truth about the "plutonium paint"
You are one of them aren't you!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Same old same old.

A family member is a 9/11 truther and stated "How could WT7 be damaged, when it was _*350 feet away*_".

When I pointed out that twin towers had a peeling exterior steel skeleton and were *1200 feet tall*, she responded with a completely different point. Never mind there are firefighter accounts of fire and physical damage, to the structure.

"but How can jet fuel melt steel?"

Then I stated the the physical damage results, of a *177,000 pound aircraft* - loaded with *11,000 gallons of jet fuel,* striking a the skyscraper at *estimated speed of 600 mph*, very likely cannot be full determined, by computer simulation or college text books.

Then I went on to state, that although *jet fuel* cannot burn hot enough to *melt steel*, it will burn hot enough to *weaken steel.*

I added to never even mind, that a good amount of a Boeing 767, is made up of *magnesium*, which *burns at 4000 degrees*, plenty hot enough to melt steel.

Again she responded with a completely different and unrelated point.

People will believe what ever they want to believe.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

OffGridCooker said:


> You are just trying to divert attention away from the truth about the "plutonium paint"
> You are one of them aren't you!


Didn't Jesse Ventura state, that it was _thermite_ paint?

He should be a reliable source of fact.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Same old same old.
> 
> A family member is a 9/11 truther and stated "How could WT7 be damaged, when it was _*350 feet away*_".
> 
> ...


What got the Magnesium up to it's ignition point and where is this discussed in the official report? What is the observable side effect of burning magnesium and was this side effect observed in the areas where you suggest that it was occurring?

How much of the fuel burned on the initial impact outside of the building? 

Did you see the pictures of people standing in the impact zones of both buildings? Some waving to attract attention to themselves for possible rescue?

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3151MqXu52s[/ame]

It would seem that there are no active fires in this area...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

OffGridCooker said:


> You are just trying to divert attention away from the truth about the "plutonium paint"
> You are one of them aren't you!


No, I am not one of "them" as I only post here and contribute information that shows that the Official Report is far from complete, and that it omits many facts that a common person can grasp as important observations.

From my first post ever on this subject[quite some time ago] I have maintained the exact same stance: I do not know what happened this day. Much of the observable evidence points to something other than what the Official Report indicates...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Download and review this PDF to get up to speed. It addresses many of the shortcomings in the official NIST Report.

http://cafr1.com/Beyond-Misinformation-2015.pdf


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Why look at yet another conspiracy site parroting the same misinformation with no real evidence?

htt://cafr1.com/Beyond-*Misinformation*-2015.pdf


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Shine said:


> What got the Magnesium up to it's ignition point and where is this discussed in the official report? What is the observable side effect of burning magnesium and was this side effect observed in the areas where you suggest that it was occurring?


Jet fuel burning. Magnesium ignites about 800 degrees F and i don't know why it was not discussed.

I don't know what the "observable side effect" would be. Usually when something burns very hot, it burns and/or melts everything it touches. I don't know, since the WTC was a pile of burning rubble for several months.

I do know jet fuel burns hot enough to weaken metal and that magnesium burns at about 5600 degrees F. 




Shine said:


> How much of the fuel burned on the initial impact outside of the building?


I don't know.



Shine said:


> Did you see the pictures of people standing in the impact zones of both buildings? Some waving to attract attention to themselves for possible rescue?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3151MqXu52s
> 
> It would seem that there are no active fires in this area...


No not until now.

The North tower had huge amounts of smoke billowing out it for over 100 minutes until it collapsed.

I guess one could just assume it was burning. Perhaps not.

I would think if a *111 ton aircraft* hit a skyscraper at *600 miles and hours*, it would penetrate the interior of the building, a considerable amount. 

Perhaps not. I remember as a kid, how a tornado, could take a blade of straw and drive it completely through a wooden barn door.

Personally, regarding 9/11, I don't really need to read _any_ reports, one way or the other. I can pretty much use my own intelligence, reasoning and logic, to figure what really happened.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why look at yet another conspiracy site parroting the same misinformation with no real evidence?
> 
> htt://cafr1.com/Beyond-*Misinformation*-2015.pdf


It wouldn't help you, you've already closed your mind to the possibility that this might be true. So, go ahead, ignore the evidence that they are trying to use to get a real investigation done, and not by the ones who have lots to lose with the wrong findings...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Jet fuel burning. Magnesium ignites about 800 degrees F and i don't know why it was not discussed.
> 
> I don't know what the "observable side effect" would be. Usually when something burns very hot, it burns and/or melts everything it touches. I don't know, since the WTC was a pile of burning rubble for several months.
> 
> ...


Magnesium burns with an incredible brilliant white light, this condition was not observed in any of the pictures that were recorded that day. I do not know why it is not in the report, they had a win if they could prove that the magnesium ignited yet they did not mention it, wonder why?

I will say that I am an aviation nut, and I do not know of too many magnesium fires from aircraft crashes, I'll have to look, most of the crashes occurred with similar burning fuel. Might be something that I am not aware, thanks for that tid-bit. I might learn something new.

Yes, you too have made your mind up. You've seen enough hard evidence to convict those of us that feel that there is something missing. The PDF points out clearly the maneuvering of NIST and a couple of other governmental entities, it was disheartening to seen it laid out in front of your eyes, you're probably better off not reviewing the information. It might change your mind.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Shine said:


> Yes, you too have made your mind up. You've seen enough hard evidence to convict those of us that feel that there is something missing. The PDF points out clearly the maneuvering of NIST and a couple of other governmental entities, it was disheartening to seen it laid out in front of your eyes, you're probably better off not reviewing the information. It might change your mind.


I always like to think I have an opened mind, but your PDA lost me from the get-go, because the "experts" started right off by comparing _apples_ to _oranges_. They always do.

*e



very total collapse of a steelframed
high-rise building during that period of
time has been caused by controlled demolition. 

In
comparison, fires have never caused the total collapse
of a steel-framed high-rise building, though
high-rise building fires occur frequently.

Click to expand...

*The WTC towers _did_ _not_ simply catch fire and then collapse.

The WTC towers were *struck by a massive aircraft - at nearly the speed of sound,* burned to some extent and then collapsed, either from burning or aircraft impact damage, likely some of both.

This is just the same old drivel.

You can drive a pickup truck through the side of a 4 bedroom house.

Will it collapse? 

Maybe it will or maybe it won't, but no scientist or engineer, can use their textbooks or simulations, to determine whether it will or it won't.

No one knows the actual extent of the WTC aircraft impact damage, or resulting fire, since the buildings collapsed.

No one. All anyone can do is speculate.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Ah, thanks for that little trip back to read the following document. To sum it up, the Magnesium is alloyed with other metals and Rare Earth metals so as to severely limit "flashover". When Flashover did occur, the chosen "good alloy" self extinguished. The alloy never demonstrated reaching 1/5 of the pure magnesium burning temperature. This was done to insure that Modern Aircraft that make use of the weight properties of Magnesium are not compromised by the volatility of the metal.

https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/AR11-13.pdf


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> No one. All anyone can do is speculate.


OK, so your response is that we should "trust" those in power to not use crisis' for their own empowerment? 

The people that provided that information are mostly engineers, scientists and architects, I found it quite easy to read. 

Yes, they have speculated, but their speculation is from a learned viewpoint. They are waving a Red Flag that there is more that is being buried with a seemingly malicious intent.

They, as I do, want an independent investigation. I sincerely do not want those that lied us into the Iraqi War to get a free pass if they might have used this event or even possibly engineered any portion of it. 

Do you?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Shine said:


> What got the Magnesium up to it's ignition point and where is this discussed in the official report? What is the observable side effect of burning magnesium and was this side effect observed in the areas where you suggest that it was occurring?
> 
> How much of the fuel burned on the initial impact outside of the building?
> 
> ...


Magnesium starts to burn at 1202 F and will burn up to 5610 F. Water put on it makes it the hottest. And the jet wasn't the only source of magnesium most likely.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

You are all blind! It was plutonium paint. That brought down the World Trade Center. Why am I the only one that can see the truth! You conspiracist are so closed minded..


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Shine said:


> It wouldn't help you, you've already closed your mind to the possibility that this might be true. So, go ahead, ignore the evidence that they are trying to use to get a real investigation done, and not by the ones who have lots to lose with the wrong findings...


I have studied it from every angle. Even insurance fraud one. I still see nothing out of hand.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Shine said:


> Magnesium burns with an incredible brilliant white light, this condition was not observed in any of the pictures that were recorded that day. I do not know why it is not in the report, they had a win if they could prove that the magnesium ignited yet they did not mention it, wonder why?
> 
> I will say that I am an aviation nut, and I do not know of too many magnesium fires from aircraft crashes, I'll have to look, most of the crashes occurred with similar burning fuel. Might be something that I am not aware, thanks for that tid-bit. I might learn something new.
> 
> Yes, you too have made your mind up. You've seen enough hard evidence to convict those of us that feel that there is something missing. The PDF points out clearly the maneuvering of NIST and a couple of other governmental entities, it was disheartening to seen it laid out in front of your eyes, you're probably better off not reviewing the information. It might change your mind.



Magnesium only burns that way when you put water on it. Otherwise it just burns regular. Its always a no no for our rookies to start spraying the tires on a car because the sparks can eat through our bunker gear all the way to our skin. Seen many magnesium fires and its a fire class all to itself.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

One thing that always comes to mind about Occam's Razor on 9/11 is this. 

What if the sites that cite a conspiracy are put there by the government to say keep you occupied and worked up so you cant see this big spending bill that just passed or another war started quietly while we anguish over this?


Would not that not be a simple answer too?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Magnesium only burns that way when you put water on it. Otherwise it just burns regular. Its always a no no for our rookies to start spraying the tires on a car because the sparks can eat through our bunker gear all the way to our skin. Seen many magnesium fires and its a fire class all to itself.


Well, the PDF that was generated by the government is all wrong, but I wouldn't doubt that. I hope, sincerely hope that you are correct. 

We got ourselves in this position by trusting our elected leaders and not holding their feet to the fire. 

I cannot give up a free pass just by the way that WTC7 fell and how the government just poo-poo'ed the whole premise.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Well, I am all for holding our elected accountable. They seem to get away with too much anymore. But I have seen car wrecks that caught on fire and one that tire caught the wheels caught. Not sure the exact alloy used on rims but the conduction from the motor to the rim does this and sometimes the rim catches the tire on fire. In other words, fire is about as predictable as the weather.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Shine said:


> Well, the PDF that was generated by the government is all wrong, but I wouldn't doubt that. I hope, sincerely hope that you are correct.
> 
> We got ourselves in this position by trusting our elected leaders and not holding their feet to the fire.
> 
> I cannot give up a free pass just by the way that WTC7 fell and how the government just poo-poo'ed the whole premise.


FWIW, if it was intentional I would vote insurance fraud. From what I understand they were getting ready to close it down, they could not sell it from all the asbestos, and the cost of abatement was too high.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> FWIW, if it was intentional I would vote insurance fraud. From what I understand they were getting ready to close it down, they could not sell it from all the asbestos, and the cost of abatement was too high.


Yes, I had heard that too but could get no real traction on finding that being said officially. Silverstein profited handsomely from that....

But hey, what an immense motive for Silverstein......


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Yeah, all I could find is hearsay too on that one.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> OK. This clip suggests that the floors that were impacted by the airliners crashing into them were on fire and then it indicates that the fires within the floors reached an estimated 1800 degrees F. Did I hear that correctly?
> 
> You are aware of how much heat is necessary to melt steel, correct?
> 
> Please elaborate upon the video below with your thoughts...


Do you have a spectral analysis showing the composition of the material? If not all you have is a video of something burning stuff falling out of a hole in a building. It could be steel, could be aluminum, could be flaming molten plastic for all you can tell from that video. 

Again Occam's razor.

What you have heard was that jet fuel burns at around 1800 in open air but if you do a little research you will discover that it burns MUCH hotter inside a jet engine. A quick google search said jet fuel temps can reach over 3,500 degrees F. Therefore there could have been spots that were hot enough to actually melt steel. Especially near the opening where the updraft from the fire would suck air into the building bringing in more oxygen. So who is to say that the temp in an office didn't get hot enough to melt the metal office furniture.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

watcher said:


> Do you have a spectral analysis showing the composition of the material? If not all you have is a video of something burning stuff falling out of a hole in a building. It could be steel, could be aluminum, could be flaming molten plastic for all you can tell from that video.
> 
> Again Occam's razor.
> 
> What you have heard was that jet fuel burns at around 1800 in open air but if you do a little research you will discover that it burns MUCH hotter inside a jet engine. A quick google search said jet fuel temps can reach over 3,500 degrees F. Therefore there could have been spots that were hot enough to actually melt steel. Especially near the opening where the updraft from the fire would suck air into the building bringing in more oxygen. So who is to say that the temp in an office didn't get hot enough to melt the metal office furniture.


I have looked at the plans and found what you said to be the most likely. The building had a core and the outside walls was "mostly" cantilevered. The elevator shaft went from top to bottom and it had mechanical floors every 8 floors complete with a boiler in them. Boilers will explode which can show why some windows on neighbor buildings were knocked out. 

The jet A fuel dumped into the shaft igniting everything in there. Elevators have 2 hour fire walls today. Not sure if that was the norm in '72. May have been 1 hour then. BUT, that's not for jet fuel ratings. Most house fires never reach flashover as the fuel is different. Carbon monoxide has a flashover at only 1128 F. Fire produces CO. Its not hard to do that math. At flashover, everything combusts at once and all heck breaks loose. 

http://www.fireservicewarrior.com/2011/12/flashover/ 

All of the main columns were at or near that shaft. Once the heat compromised the fire walls the main beams got weak causing the cantilevered members to deflect toward the center beams. This could cause all members to crash inward. 

Another thing that is not mentioned is ventilation. Once a fire is ventilated it tends to travel toward that source of O2. people were jumping out of windows that didn't open. they has to open them somehow. Most were on top floors so the fire was perfectly ventilated to create a perfect convection column in the center making more heat there. 

Many other things too but I have to work tomorrow and you have probably already seen them anyway.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Attacking the messenger again, I see. The message must be somewhat unsettling to you...
> Why are you against another investigation?





> You seem to be awful quick with your deflections that my information comes from "internet conspiracy sites" - weren't you aware of the testimonies that were offered so that we can get to the bottom of the "attack" and "attackers"?


Not unsettling, just ridiculous.

Much of your "information" is so far out of touch with reality that it negates the rest, because even if the details are correct, you too often make an illogical leap to false conclusions. 



> Yes, you too have made your mind up. You've seen enough *hard evidence* to convict those of us that feel that there is something missing


I haven't seen you present any "hard evidence" that actually supports your claims at all. 

It can (and has been) all be easily refuted



> Due to the limited amount of information that is provided to the public regarding nano-thermite, I can only surmise what the effect of "painting" it on would be. After researching *thermite* and its uses, and understanding that *nanothermite* is essentially "*super-thermite*" the conclusion that this application could have contributed to the failure of the structures seems quite *reasonable*.


No, it's not "reasonable" at all to think you could paint on any material that could affect those beams. All you really seem to know is the buzzwords.

Just what type of engineering degree is it you say you have?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

watcher said:


> Do you have a spectral analysis showing the composition of the material? If not all you have is a video of something burning stuff falling out of a hole in a building. It could be steel, could be aluminum, could be flaming molten plastic for all you can tell from that video.
> 
> What metal, when heated to a melting state, produces an orange glow? I've worked with metal, oxyacetylene, stick, tig, mig welding... What metal produces, in the light of day an orange glow?
> 
> ...


Look, I appreciate your zeal. All that you have provided is similar to the NIST evaluations. Many Statements that NIST made with many of the initial observations in the Official Report had to be walked back.

Where a steel structure is compromised by fire and some damage from some falling infrastructure, can you explain how that structure would fall THROUGH ITSELF at more than 97% of free fall speeds for over 2 seconds? The fact that this did happen is measured and is indisputable. NIST admitted that it did happen, they made no effort to explain it but the did admit it happened. Where was the resistance from the floors below? Your assumptions? -> Please


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Much of your "information" is so far out of touch with reality that it negates the rest, because even if the details are correct, you too often make an illogical leap to false conclusions.
> 
> Please identify the "false conclusions". We will go from there.
> 
> ...


Just what type of engineering degree do *YOU* hold? I hold an associates degree in Computer Engineering geared towards robotics. Graduated with a 3.88 GPA.

Please answer the questions above or, unless you have answers, let someone else answer. You answer with non-answers that apparently increases the "Click-Rate" for this site. I understand that it might be monetarily fashionable for you but - please provide information that rebuts what I have provided rather than just innuendo...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Where a steel structure is compromised by fire and some damage from some falling infrastructure, can you explain how that structure would fall THROUGH ITSELF at more than 97% of *free fall speeds* for over 2 seconds?


I see you don't want to give a simple straight answer to something you claim about yourself, and your method of inserting your comments into a quote makes it too much trouble to respond to each point.

It's all just repetition anyway



> Just what type of engineering degree do you hold?


I don't have an engineering degree. 

I don't need one to know much of what you believe isn't true.

Buzzwords are all you've got, which is why this discussion was pointless to begin with.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Buzzwords are all you've got, which is why this discussion was pointless to begin with



lol... You do not have a sufficient answer.

Attack the facts, not the messenger... 

I stand waiting.

Oh yeah... this is my &#924;&#927;&#923;&#937;&#925; &#923;&#913;&#914;&#917; moment - whatcha got? Spell it out.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You do not have a sufficient answer.


"Computer engineering" 

I figured it was something like that, because it was obviously *not *structural or mechanical engineering.

Carry on with your fantasy theories


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I see you don't want to give a simple straight answer to something you claim about yourself, and your method of inserting your comments into a quote makes it too much trouble to respond to each point.
> 
> If you pay attention... you can respond, in your color of choice, to my rebuttals of your positions. This website provides you with the capability to do so.
> 
> ...


No. Credible PDFs showing what I understand to be reasonable are what I have. You have yet to address them, which is expected. I wish you well...[he said with genuine intent.]


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> Look, I appreciate your zeal. All that you have provided is similar to the NIST evaluations. Many Statements that NIST made with many of the initial observations in the Official Report had to be walked back.


The point about the jet fuel is because 99+% of the 'it was an inside job' theories are based on the 'fact' that burning jet fuel can't get hot enough to melt steel. This 'fact' is clearly wrong.




Shine said:


> Where a steel structure is compromised by fire and some damage from some falling infrastructure, can you explain how that structure would fall THROUGH ITSELF at more than 97% of free fall speeds for over 2 seconds? The fact that this did happen is measured and is indisputable. NIST admitted that it did happen, they made no effort to explain it but the did admit it happened. Where was the resistance from the floors below? Your assumptions? -> Please


Sigh. . . I have explained it before but I'll try again. We all learned in grade school the energy is equal to the one half of the mass times the speed. Now higher math tells that the speed of a falling object is the square root of twice the distance it falls times the acceleration due to gravity (we'll ignore air resistance today).

So if you think about the mass of the first, i.e. the first floor to fall, which would include the office furnishings, the bodies and any debris it had been hit with falling 10 feet onto the second floor you can realize that it took a heck of impact.

Now think about if you have a sheet of newspaper in your hands. If you slowly pull it seems to offer a lot of resistance, yet if you quickly snap your hands apart it seems to split instantly. 

With the energy hitting them the time from impact to floor failure would have been so small it would have been hard, if not impossible, to measure without high speed equipment. 

Picture this if you will. You make 'floors' out of 1/4 plywood 10 feet apart. You put weights on each of these floor then you take a huge weight (compared to the weight on the floor) and drop it on the top most floor. Its going to fail and fall. The impact of it and the weight you dropped is going to cause the second floor to fail, this will keep on in a domino effect. Each "floor" will fail slightly faster than the "floor" above it because it is being asked to withstand more energy. THIS is why the WTC buildings seemed to fall at free fall.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

So, by your assessment, the increasingly stronger floors below your falling entity provide little to no resistance to that portion which is falling? Are you positing that this is some what like a "beer-can" theory? You can stand on a beer can easily. Shift your weight and your weight collapses the can easily? 

I really don't think that theory can answer all of the oddities about this collapse but I get where you are coming from. If you watch the video closely, there is no substantial bulging to indicate that this is a fire driven collapse and at the moment of collapse it progresses too fast to fit the pancake theory and it does not follow that it should be able to fall straight through itself at the recorded speed. There are too many reinforced structures below it for it to be able to accelerate that quickly.

"Picture this if you will. You make 'floors' out of 1/4 plywood 10 feet apart. You put weights on each of these floor then you take a huge weight (compared to the weight on the floor) and drop it on the top most floor. Its going to fail and fall. The impact of it and the weight you dropped is going to cause the second floor to fail, this will keep on in a domino effect. Each "floor" will fail slightly faster than the "floor" above it because it is being asked to withstand more energy. THIS is why the WTC buildings seemed to fall at free fall."

What if each level were progressively stronger than the one above it? Are you going to drop the weight directly in the center or will the weight span the entire structure placing equal stresses on all of the load bearing units which you are using to support the plywood because if you do not impact the load bearing supports to the point of failure then you are going to have that weight fall to one side or the other if you had, say 100 sheets of plywood stacked up. How can you get that weight to fall straight through all 100 sheets and land in the center of all the plywood and on top of everything. And - can you do it twice in a row in the exact same fashion?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Shine said:


> So, by your assessment, the increasingly stronger floors below your falling entity provide little to no resistance to that portion which is falling? Are you positing that this is some what like a "beer-can" theory? You can stand on a beer can easily. Shift your weight and your weight collapses the can easily?
> 
> I really don't think that theory can answer all of the oddities about this collapse but I get where you are coming from. If you watch the video closely, there is no substantial bulging to indicate that this is a fire driven collapse and at the moment of collapse it progresses too fast to fit the pancake theory and it does not follow that it should be able to fall straight through itself at the recorded speed. There are too many reinforced structures below it for it to be able to accelerate that quickly.



There is nothing more flooring, more shockingly defiant of logic than what we all saw the moment those buildings laid down in their own footprints. Either a person had that flash of time when they Knew what they were looking at was wrong, or they didn't. There isn't a thing you can ever say or explain to bring that moment of clarity or recreate it if it was ever there and denied. It isn't that people don't Know....it's that they can't Accept.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Only the first eight floors were reinforced. Plus flour 41 & 42. They w mechanical floors with much more weight including 18,000 water tanks. The other floors were bar joists.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

For those who doubt these buildings came down like we were told they did. How do you think it was done? Every building I have seen brought down by explosions have had the bottom taken out from under them they did not collapse from the top down.

Jim


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I never believed it came from the top down. Like I said earlier in my post the jet fuel dumped down the elevator shaft where the main supports were near to. The fire was ventilated at the top where the plane crashed causing a super heated connection plume. This caused the main supports to weaken toward the center and collapse the same way. 

Everyone keeps thinking it was top down. The solution is usually the simplest one as had already been said. Now as to who hired the pilots could be anyone's guess.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Think about a controlled demolition. Then think about how long it takes to get a building ready for that. It's been said they painted on nanos. Well to do that you would have to expose the beams that are covered in at least two layers of sheet rock then sprayed with vermiculite and do it without anyone noticing. It would take closer to a year to get the right placement. Then there are cables that need to be installed and so on. But something done covertly.

Then they were terrorist or made out to be that. Why would they care which way it fell? These simple things scream at me that it was just the way it was said. This time anyway.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

How do you make heads or tails of this when coupled with the Official Report. The actual proof of the windows in the Lobby being blown out and the Granite Wall pieces destroyed. This information is available to anyone that wishes to look for them:

"Most folks know that William Rodriguez is the 9/11 hero who saved hundreds of lives, the last person to escape alive from the World Trade Center before they collapsed, and that his testimony that the basement of WTC1 exploded before the plane hit was ignored by officials. But many may not be aware that another maintenance worker reported the same for WTC2, or that three witnesses to events inconsistent with the 9/11 Commission Report who went public turned up dead &#8212; one of whom reported stepping over dead bodies in WTC7 before the Towers came down. Though lengthy, this investigative report reveals more details that deserve the attention of all who believe in truth and justice.*"

*Call it more conspiracy stuff if you will, it still remains to have a legitimate answer applied to it.
https://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/last-man-out-on-911-makes-shocking-disclosures/

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kanj8gx4E1M[/ame]


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> So, by your assessment, the increasingly stronger floors below your falling entity provide little to no resistance to that portion which is falling? Are you positing that this is some what like a "beer-can" theory? You can stand on a beer can easily. Shift your weight and your weight collapses the can easily?


Sort of. Not a great analogy but think of a tall can and this can has small beams inside to keep the sides from bowing. The can could hold your weight as long as the beams were there to keep the sides of it from failing. Now picture the first set of beams failing and all of your weight suddenly 'falls' down and hits the next set of beams. They were never meant to hold up under that force and they would fail and fail fast.

Now picture you having a rod up the back of your shirt (the central columns) and being inside a box (the exoskeleton). That would keep you from falling over so you would fall straight down and the can would be perfectly flat in the end.




Shine said:


> I really don't think that theory can answer all of the oddities about this collapse but I get where you are coming from. If you watch the video closely, there is no substantial bulging to indicate that this is a fire driven collapse and at the moment of collapse it progresses too fast to fit the pancake theory and it does not follow that it should be able to fall straight through itself at the recorded speed. There are too many reinforced structures below it for it to be able to accelerate that quickly.


Watch the video I posted and you can see the bulging on one of the buildings. It would not take much of a bulge to show that the supports for that section had failed.

Again its the design of the building which made it fall how it did as fast as it did. Research it for yourself. The floor supports were only supported on the ends with columns on the inside and an exoskeleton on the outside. Once the pancaking started what would have stopped it? The columns and exoskeleton would have acted like guides because they would have been reasonably stiff until AFTER a floor or two had failed.




Shine said:


> "Picture this if you will. You make 'floors' out of 1/4 plywood 10 feet apart. You put weights on each of these floor then you take a huge weight (compared to the weight on the floor) and drop it on the top most floor. Its going to fail and fall. The impact of it and the weight you dropped is going to cause the second floor to fail, this will keep on in a domino effect. Each "floor" will fail slightly faster than the "floor" above it because it is being asked to withstand more energy. THIS is why the WTC buildings seemed to fall at free fall."
> 
> What if each level were progressively stronger than the one above it?


What if it had been Santa Claus' sled instead of an airliner that hit it? What if doesn't change facts. The floors were only designed to only support their weight and the weight of the people and equipment on it. They transferred weight to the central columns and the exoskeleton. The floors did not get stronger nor weaker as you moved up the building. That's the key, ALL of the weight was supported by the central columns and exoskeleton.




Shine said:


> Are you going to drop the weight directly in the center or will the weight span the entire structure placing equal stresses on all of the load bearing units which you are using to support the plywood because if you do not impact the load bearing supports to the point of failure then you are going to have that weight fall to one side or the other if you had, say 100 sheets of plywood stacked up. How can you get that weight to fall straight through all 100 sheets and land in the center of all the plywood and on top of everything. And - can you do it twice in a row in the exact same fashion?


As I have pointed out many times its because of the guiding effect of the columns and exoskeleton. Then there is inertia, once the mass is falling straight down what is there to make it want to change direction? As I have stated the floors were not built to withstand anywhere near those kind of forces so they would fail long before their small, vs the mass falling, resistance had any chance to change things. It'd be like trying to change the direction of travel of a 80,000# truck by throwing bowling balls against its side.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Shine said:


> How do you make heads or tails of this when coupled with the Official Report. The actual proof of the windows in the Lobby being blown out and the Granite Wall pieces destroyed. This information is available to anyone that wishes to look for them:
> 
> "Most folks know that William Rodriguez is the 9/11 hero who saved hundreds of lives, the last person to escape alive from the World Trade Center before they collapsed, and that his testimony that the basement of WTC1 exploded before the plane hit was ignored by officials. But many may not be aware that another maintenance worker reported the same for WTC2, or that three witnesses to events inconsistent with the 9/11 Commission Report who went public turned up dead â one of whom reported stepping over dead bodies in WTC7 before the Towers came down. Though lengthy, this investigative report reveals more details that deserve the attention of all who believe in truth and justice.*"
> 
> ...



First how did he know it blew up before the plane hit? Be was still inside the other building. 

Furthermore, a bomb in the basement is no where near enough to bring that down like that. Didn't bin Laden try that once?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> First how did he know it blew up before the plane hit? Be was still inside the other building.
> 
> Furthermore, a bomb in the basement is no where near enough to bring that down like that. Didn't bin Laden try that once?


I am not certain about how he made any determination about when the explosion occurred.

I think that it was some other Arabic person that tried that, but that's neither here nor there. 

If someone is looking for me to put all this together and say "This is what happened" we might as well end this conversation now. All I have ever said is that there are more than enough questions about this event that shine a light on the possibility that something else happened.

All in all, it would seem to me that at some point the progression of the top section of the building would have halted due to encountering too much resistance. For me to consider less than one tenth of the mass of that building to be able to reduce the entire building a complete collapse goes beyond the pale.

The way that the debris was treated in the aftermath was too suspicious and appeared to have a "quick, get it gone..." type of air surrounding it.

How many aircraft crashes into high rise buildings have we ever had to examine? How many steel buildings have ever collapsed due to limited damage and interspersed fires burning? This too screams out that there was something amiss...


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

WTC 7 and controlled demolition, side by side comparison - 
(be honest with yourself)

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7Rm6ZFROmc[/ame]


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Woolieface said:


> WTC 7 and controlled demolition, side by side comparison -
> (be honest with yourself)
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7Rm6ZFROmc


OK wonder how many controlled detonation videos they had to search through to get that one? 

The building on the right only had explosive detonation at its base.

If building 7 had significant damage at it's base, from the huge amount of debris from the falling tower and that base gave away, why couldn't the result be exactly the same?

The video does not show the base of building 7, to show that it was "blown out".


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Shine said:


> OK, so your response is that we should "trust" those in power to not use crisis' for their own empowerment?
> 
> The people that provided that information are mostly engineers, scientists and architects, I found it quite easy to read.
> 
> ...


I don't have to trust anybody, one way or the other

I saw with my own eyes what happened and Osama Bin Ladin himself, backed me up, on exactly what happened.

Of course, that's probably just lies too. 

Islamist extremists tried to blow up the World Trade center in 1993

Who was behind that "false flag" operation? Bill Clinton?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> OK wonder how many controlled detonation videos they had to search through to get that one?


It's just more BS from the conspiracy sites.
It only make sense when one ignores facts, logic and physics and just repeats mindless questions.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Shine said:


> I am not certain about how he made any determination about when the explosion occurred.
> 
> I think that it was some other Arabic person that tried that, but that's neither here nor there.
> 
> ...




I already addressed that. If the middle columns got compromised from the convection plume from the bottom up the rest would come down. Bottom up instead of top down its what happened.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> I already addressed that. If the middle columns got compromised from the convection plume from the bottom up the rest would come down. Bottom up instead of top down its what happened.



Well, I hope you're all right. I sincerely do. I will continue to stand in the line that calls for a new investigation because that what I truly believe is needed.


Thanks to those who actually participated in the discussion, to the others... meh...


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Correctly done explosive demolition always looks like this

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNzOpdbIFDc[/ame]


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Shine said:


> Well, I hope you're all right. I sincerely do. I will continue to stand in the line that calls for a new investigation because that what I truly believe is needed.
> 
> 
> Thanks to those who actually participated in the discussion, to the others... meh...


Ok not on the phone now trying to see a post. I agree with a new independent investigation. It may be nothing but it wouldn't hurt anything either.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Woolieface said:


> WTC 7 and controlled demolition, side by side comparison -
> (be honest with yourself)
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7Rm6ZFROmc


Sorry Woolie, wasn't trying to ignore you its just hard to watch video on my phone with my eyes. 

Yes, they are similar but it still stands out in my mind the magnitude of such an undertaking. It would take no less than 60-100 workers 6 to 9 months to get a building that big ready. All the while working around the office workers and no one said anything? Every time I did a remodel on a building like that every time we sneezed it went to the top and we got a talking to. I just cant imagine jackhammers and sledge hammers not causing a ruckus.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

The Refit of the Citicorp building was performed on the sly without the occupants knowing...

https://failures.wikispaces.com/Citicorp+Center


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Shine said:


> The Refit of the Citicorp building was performed on the sly without the occupants knowing...
> 
> https://failures.wikispaces.com/Citicorp+Center


Yes I see that but these were horizontals and not verticals. Did you see this passage in the link? 

_LeMessurier asked himself "How would i fix it?" and then he realized that these diagonals were set back and the connections were made above the floor line making them quite accessible_

It shows that horizontals are important too to the whole structure but not as much as verticals. And I can just about guarantee that there were some that complained. It wasn't really a secret it was just a cover up. Punch out on a big building like that can go on for more than a year anyway. I did a six month "punch out" on a six floor hospital. But I was 10 months ahead of schedule too. Do you see the bait and switch? It wasn't really finished ten months early but it was operational. 

That particular job the surgery was second floor. It was completed first. It generated 2 million a month in revenue. Ten months of that adds quit a bit of value to the job. Next floor was the first, the ER. Next big bang for the buck. Then the fourth floor the VIP private rooms. Congressman "good time" Charlie Wilson died in one of those rooms. Then the you and I double rooms were last. Top two floors were mechanical and offices. They were done last. 

But it looks like I did it ten months early and everyone is happy. I got to know every nurse and Dr. there. No discount though. In fact I think they charged me more even. 

But a Demo is very different. you have to cut holes in the floor and run cables toward the center. People would be falling through holes or tripping over cables as they go to work. Much dust and noise.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Shine View Post
> The Refit of the Citicorp building was performed on the sly without the occupants knowing...


That's not what your source states:



> Misleading reports were fed to the press about the reasons for the retrofit





> Plywood houses were set up to shield the building occupants from the welding and debris. The work was done at night when staff would not be occupying the building.


Just because the actual work took place when most people weren't there doesn't mean they didn't know it was taking place.



> An emergency evacuation plan was developed in conjunction with local law enforcement, search and rescue, firefighters, major city authority figures, and shelters. *2000 emergency red cross workers were kept on stand-by* in the event of a failure.


How did they do that if "no one knew"?

It's this sort of illogical leap and outright falsehoods that takes away all credibility from conspiracy theorists


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not what your source states:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, well... They made the necessary arrangements with the people that HAD to know. What would your leap be? Did you ask the occupants what they knew what was going on during the refit? Was there this project and that project going on with some other explanation other than "Um, Oh... We're fixing the building so that it won't fall down in high winds"? That was the intention of my post, they did it on the sly without the occupants knowing what was going on. That's what I wrote. A parallel where another building had workers doing work and the occupants were not aware of the actual intent. Please... -> Really?

So, did you pull that out of somewhere? Illogical? How so? You just pull out petty details and try to make them what you want them to be. Read my original statement, try to understand if you read it in the manner that I intended it to be read.

Remember, when someone else writes something, you do not get to assign their meaning, you only get to understand that they had their own meaning.

Now, because you intend upon calling me names to attempt to distract from my message, were there any reports of heavy maintenance and other maintenance projects going on at the WTC complexes in the months before 9/11 where the occupants were aware of something going on but did not know what was actually being done?

My goodness, you certainly try hard to screw peoples meanings around your little fingers... It doesn't work that way.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

mreynolds said:


> Sorry Woolie, wasn't trying to ignore you its just hard to watch video on my phone with my eyes.
> 
> Yes, they are similar but it still stands out in my mind the magnitude of such an undertaking. It would take no less than 60-100 workers 6 to 9 months to get a building that big ready. All the while working around the office workers and no one said anything? Every time I did a remodel on a building like that every time we sneezed it went to the top and we got a talking to. I just cant imagine jackhammers and sledge hammers not causing a ruckus.



Keep in mind that this is the government, we're talking about. Access to the best in any field needed is not a challenge...access to funds to do whatever needed to be done is not a challenge. Covert operations are not a challenge. If it were said that our military special ops went to a foreign land, sent in a team to plant explosives in an enemy building without their knowledge and brought it down, I don't think we'd even bat an eye. 

There's a very interesting list of tenants for the WTC buildings prior to the event who were both experts of the highest caliber in explosives as well as working for/with the government.

_ One such experienced organization was Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). As mentioned in an earlier essay, SAIC was "the DOD and Homeland Security contractor that supplied the largest contingent of non-governmental investigators to the NIST WTC investigation. SAIC has extensive links to nanothermites, developing and judging nanothermite research proposals for the military and other military contractors, and developing and formulating nano-thermites directly. SAIC's subsidiary Applied Ordnance Technology has done research on the ignition of nanothermites with lasers." 48

SAIC, founded by a scientist from Los Alamos National Laboratory, had a long history at the WTC, having evaluated the basement levels of the buildings as a potential terrorist target in 1986. 49 Interestingly, the company was hired to investigate the 1993 bombing of the WTC, an event that was "remarkably like the one which" they had foreseen in 1986. 50 In fact, SAIC later boasted that -- "After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, our blast analyses produced tangible results that helped identify those responsible." 51

It turns out that SAIC was one of the first organizations to show up at Ground Zero. The company claimed in its 2004 shareholder report that -- "Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, we responded rapidly to assist a number of customers near ground zero in New York City and in Washington, D.C." 52 In one of these instances, "SAIC technicians raced to Ground Zero within hours to install an ad hoc communications network for first responders and local financial companies." 53 Therefore, SAIC was in control of at least some of the communications at Ground Zero.

Perhaps the most interesting SAIC connection to the cleanup was John Blitch, a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army's Special Forces, who was said to have retired from the Army just the day before 9/11. It was reported that Blitch was "filling out the paperwork in an out-processing office of the Pentagon on the morning of September 10, 2001," and that after "three years at the helm of the Defense Department's Tactical Mobile Robots Program," he was "leaving to direct the Center for Intelligent Robotics and Unmanned Systems at the Science Applications International Corporation." 54_

http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p4.html

I've said before that when I talk about 911, I'm not guessing about who the perpetrators were. The exact type of explosives used is not something that I've ever directly asked the "someone" that I could ask, and I do not ask those questions over the phone, but it will be on my mind to find out at my next opportunity.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> My goodness, you certainly try hard to *screw peoples meanings around* your little fingers... It doesn't work that way.





> The Refit of the Citicorp building was performed on the sly without the occupants knowing...


It all came directly from *your* source and your own words

It has nothing to do with WTC at all



> Now, because you intend upon calling me names to attempt to distract from my message, were there any reports of heavy maintenance and other maintenance projects going on at the WTC complexes in the months before 9/11 where the occupants were aware of something going on but did not know what was actually being done?


Look it up if you want to know. I made no such claims


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

"It all came directly from *your* source and your own words" - I said what I meant. You evidently did not get my meaning. I explained for you to understand. You seem to still misunderstand. I cannot help you any further.

"It has nothing to do with WTC at all" - Um... I guess you are correct here, I mean, the Citicorp Refit was not involved in 9/11 nor was it in anyway connected to what is referred to as "The World Trade Complex"... sheesh.

"Look it up if you want to know. I made no such claims" - Don't need to, already am confident about what I know on this topic.

[there, I made it easier for you to reply to anything that you might like to address, better?]


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> "Look it up if you want to know. I made no such claims" - Don't need to, already am confident about what I know on this topic.


I'm confident in what you know also
You claim it happened but asked me for proof


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

IMO, the "armchair engineering" is the most interesting of the 9/11 conspiracies. 

As I learned here (but i think I already figured it out) is that the towers had very thick steel structure at the bottom and a relatively thin steel structure at the top, varying thickness between bottom to top.

Building are designed to relatively narrow standards, to preform adequately, but do not go overboard, as to constrain costs. Certainly the Trade Center towers were plenty expensive to put up, regardless.

That said, could the steel structure - towards the thinner upper structure, handle the 600 MPH impact and the additional 177,000 pounds of weight of a hijacked jetliner?

Who can say yes and what would they base that on?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Woolieface said:


> Keep in mind that this is the government, we're talking about. Access to the best in any field needed is not a challenge...access to funds to do whatever needed to be done is not a challenge. Covert operations are not a challenge. If it were said that our military special ops went to a foreign land, sent in a team to plant explosives in an enemy building without their knowledge and brought it down, I don't think we'd even bat an eye.


So, hijacked aircraft, did not fly into the twin towers of the World Trade Center?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Woolie, I understand what you are saying and agree that when it comes to the government anything is possible. I have to base my opinions on my own knowledge on this because I really haven't seen anything to the contrary. I wish I could adequately describe a high rise that is going to be demoed better. It really doesn't matter how good they are covert would be out of the question. The most covert demo on record was 2008 Japan where they demoed from the bottom up. They took two floors out every ten days and all most people saw was the building getting shorter unless they drove by it or was on site. 

For explosives it takes a team six months just to assess the building. Even this is not covert because they have to open up walls and see what's there. They cant rely on the inspectors report from decades before.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Woolieface said:


> WTC 7 and controlled demolition, side by side comparison -
> (be honest with yourself)
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7Rm6ZFROmc


They looked totally diffrent to me.
One building had a lot of smoke and heat coming out, and it was obvious it had a fire, the other building only kicked up some dust.
What did you see?


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Conspiricist are unable to weigh the "truth value" of antidotal evidence, and
any evidence is enough to make them jump to a conclusion.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

OffGridCooker said:


> They looked totally diffrent to me.
> One building had a lot of smoke and heat coming out, and it was obvious it had a fire, the other building only kicked up some dust.
> What did you see?


There was a fire? :shrug:
But what kind of fire brings down a building exactly like a controlled demolition?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

OffGridCooker said:


> Conspiricist are unable to weigh the "truth value" of antidotal evidence, and
> any evidence is enough to make them jump to a conclusion.


"anecdotal"? No, I am not unable.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Shine said:


> Ah, thanks for that little trip back to read the following document. To sum it up, the Magnesium is alloyed with other metals and Rare Earth metals so as to severely limit "flashover". When Flashover did occur, the chosen "good alloy" self extinguished. The alloy never demonstrated reaching 1/5 of the pure magnesium burning temperature. This was done to insure that Modern Aircraft that make use of the weight properties of Magnesium are not compromised by the volatility of the metal.
> 
> https://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/AR11-13.pdf


Unless I'm missing something, this report - prepared two years ago, only covers magnesium used in *passenger seat frames*, for new aircraft.

I did not see where it mentioned anything about the structural magnesium used in the aircraft of 9/11

Please elaborate.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm confident in what you know also
> You claim it happened but asked me for proof



EEEEEENNNNT!

Wrong answer Bob, but thanks for playing!

Here's the Board Game version of our show, What's My Name!!!


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Unless I'm missing something, this report - prepared two years ago, only covers magnesium used in *passenger seat frames*, for new aircraft.
> 
> I did not see where it mentioned anything about the structural magnesium used in the aircraft of 9/11
> 
> Please elaborate.


You have information regarding other parts of the aircraft which might not use that alloyed magnesium? - Please share...

That's lawsuit material there - might be enough to shut down all of today's airlines. I mean if your customer base is a "captured audience" and you use a material that ignites easily and burns at a tremendous temperature then wow, someone is going to go to jail for that... Jest sayin'


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> IMO, the "armchair engineering" is the most interesting of the 9/11 conspiracies.


Armchair engineers plus armchair explosives 'experts' who couldn't tell the difference between a 1/4 block of TNT and a 1/2 kilo block of C4 without reading the labels and think what they see in the movies is how explosives really work.




plowjockey said:


> That said, could the steel structure - towards the thinner upper structure, handle the 600 MPH impact and the additional 177,000 pounds of weight of a hijacked jetliner?
> 
> Who can say yes and what would they base that on?


Unless its been deleted in a clean up I once did the math to show how much kinetic energy the aircraft delivered at impact. IICR, it worked out to the equivalent almost a ton of TNT being detonated. That doesn't include the energy delivered by the rapid combustion of the jet fuel.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

"Aircraft seatmakers will soon start using lightweight, new-generation magnesium alloys in seat construction now that a long-standing ban has been lifted providing they meet strict flammability performance requirements.
On 14 August, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) &#8211; which develops standards for aviation &#8211; published *SAE AS8049 Revision C*, in which a key paragraph has been changed from reading that &#8216;Magnesium alloys shall not be used&#8217; to the new wording:
&#8220;Magnesium alloys may be used in aircraft seat construction provided they are tested to and meet the flammability performance requirements in the FAA Fire Safety Branch document: Aircraft Materials Fire Test Handbook &#8211; DOT/FAA/AR-00/12, Chapter 25, Oil Burner Flammability Test for Magnesium Alloy Seat Structure.&#8221; "


http://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/20...o-be-used-in-aircraft-seats-as-ban-is-lifted/


Seems there is some misunderstanding regarding Magnesium in Air Craft

Also, the two WTC towers were engineered to handle a 707 at that speed, wonder what the weight differential is between those two aircraft is...


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Woolieface said:


> There was a fire? :shrug:
> But what kind of fire brings down a building exactly like a controlled demolition?


In all fairness, I did explain one way that could have happened.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

mreynolds said:


> In all fairness, I did explain one way that could have happened.


Sorry if I missed it somewhere else, is this the post you're referring to?
_
" I never believed it came from the top down. Like I said earlier in my post the jet fuel dumped down the elevator shaft where the main supports were near to. The fire was ventilated at the top where the plane crashed causing a super heated connection plume. This caused the main supports to weaken toward the center and collapse the same way.

Everyone keeps thinking it was top down. The solution is usually the simplest one as had already been said. Now as to who hired the pilots could be anyone's guess."_


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> Unless its been deleted in a clean up I once did the math to show how much kinetic energy the aircraft delivered at impact. IICR, it worked out to the equivalent almost a ton of TNT being detonated. That doesn't include the energy delivered by the rapid combustion of the jet fuel.


Maybe that would explain the "explosion", some claimed to have heard.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Shine said:


> You have information regarding other parts of the aircraft which might not use that alloyed magnesium? - Please share...
> 
> That's lawsuit material there - might be enough to shut down all of today's airlines. I mean if your customer base is a "captured audience" and you use a material that ignites easily and burns at a tremendous temperature then wow, someone is going to go to jail for that... Jest sayin'



I don't and I won't. because there is really no need to, IMO.

I've made my point that jet aircraft contains a fair amount of magnesium, which ignites easily and burns very hot.



> That's lawsuit material there - might be enough to shut down all of today's airlines. I mean if your customer base is a "captured audience" and you use a material that ignites easily and burns at a tremendous temperature then wow, someone is going to go to jail for that... Jest sayin


I'll go out on a limb and state, that if an aircraft crashes, structural magnesium, that will burn, if the wreckage catches fire, will probably be the least of their worries.

Regardless, that's why airport fire departments use foam instead of water, which will make magnesium burn even more.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Woolieface said:


> There was a fire? :shrug:
> But what kind of fire brings down a building exactly like a controlled demolition?


But the were totally diffrent.


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Woolieface said:


> "anecdotal"? No, I am not unable.


What dictionary are you using?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Shine said:


> Also, the two WTC towers were engineered to handle a 707 at that speed, wonder what the weight differential is between those two aircraft is...


I have heard this too, and whether it is true or not, shouldn't really even matter, IMO.

We have all learned a long time ago, that just because something is engineered to withstand something, does not necessarily mean that it will.

FWIW the difference in maximum takeoff weight, between an average Boeing 707 and the 767 that crashed into the towers, is about 148,000 pounds, depending on the 707 model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707#Variants


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

OffGridCooker said:


> But the were totally diffrent.


Seriously?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

OffGridCooker said:


> What dictionary are you using?


Ok...so what is "antidotal" evidence?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

OffGridCooker said:


> What dictionary are you using?


They all will be the same
"Anecdotal" means "from stories"
"Antidotal" would be a medical term (*if* it was a real word)


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> I have heard this too, and whether it is true or not, shouldn't really even matter, IMO.
> 
> We have all learned a long time ago, that just because something is engineered to withstand something, does not necessarily mean that it will.
> 
> ...


not arguing, I still only want to know what did happen but in the same light, when things are designed with a certain level of over-build, the pendulum does swing to the other side sometimes, I've seen things that were built to survive "X" go on to survive much more than the value of "X".


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Woolieface said:


> Sorry if I missed it somewhere else, is this the post you're referring to?
> _
> " I never believed it came from the top down. Like I said earlier in my post the jet fuel dumped down the elevator shaft where the main supports were near to. The fire was ventilated at the top where the plane crashed causing a super heated connection plume. This caused the main supports to weaken toward the center and collapse the same way.
> 
> Everyone keeps thinking it was top down. The solution is usually the simplest one as had already been said. Now as to who hired the pilots could be anyone's guess."_


If that was what you were referencing, this comment seems to be about the towers the planes hit. The video I posted showed WTC 7. No plane hit that building.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Shine said:


> not arguing, I still only want to know what did happen but in the same light, when things are designed with a certain level of over-build, the pendulum does swing to the other side sometimes, I've seen things that were built to survive "X" go on to survive much more than the value of "X".


Ahh. . . . both buildings DID withstand the impact of the aircraft. 

I haven't seen the engineer's report on the design and aircraft strikes but I'd be willing to bet if you read it you will find it didn't allow for a fuel feed out of control fire. It was the combo of the strikes and the fires which caused the failure.


----------

