9/11 Attacks

pablo_escobar

When Paul Wolfowitz was asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said:

"Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

read full article

elius

Soveriegn wrote: »

Sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o

Compare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMibXJjx_DE&feature=channel

seannash

pablo_escobar wrote: »

It has everything to do with it.

You're arguing the US weren't involved in any pre-planned invasion before 9/11, I'm telling you they were and there's plenty out there to corroborate.

That Jane's Security article is merely 1 piece of evidence.

sorry dude i dont think i was arguing that the US weren't involved in any preplanned invasion.

im arguing that the US did not create sept 11th in order to go to war.i think it hapened and they used it as an excuse to go to war

elius

Would the weight of the top half collapsing not have brought the rest down??

Soveriegn

seannash wrote: »

sorry dude i dont think i was arguing that the US weren't involved in any preplanned invasion.

im arguing that the US did not create sept 11th in order to go to war.i think it hapened and they used it as an excuse to go to war

True, the invasion was planned prior to 9/11.

They are quoted as saying... "we need a new pearl harbour"

If they didn't plan it (which they did), they got very lucky.

Divorce Referendum

Soveriegn wrote: »

No plane
Fire collapsed all the main support columns simultaneously ?
Pancake
Damage from debris but it stood for 7 hours

No plane: The damage from the impact from tower 1 and 2 did alot of damage

Fire collapsed all the main support columns simultaneously: The fire weakened the structural steel and caused the failure of the penthouse as shown in your video. The weight of this penthouse caused a vertical progression of failure to the damage below caused by the towers

Pancake: Wasnt the pancake theory debunked yonks ago.

Damage from debris but stood for 7 hours: Thats because it was the damage plus the fire weaking the structure that caused the collapse.

seannash

Soveriegn wrote: »

300+ architects and engineers with hundreds of thousands of hours of experience all concur that explosives were used.

Find me 300+ architects and engineers with hundreds of thousands of hours of experience all concur that explosives were not used, and you have a case.

not 1 structural engineer or 1 demolitions company suport the CT.
Engineer is a very broad term
Again an architecht is not a structural engineer

you can read what the difference is here

http://www.helium.com/items/1028268-the-difference-between-an-architect-and-a-structural-engineer

i understand that these people would have some exerience with buildings but they are not as qualified as a structural engineer

just a quote from the link

Architects are responsible for design of the building shape, layout and appearance. Structural engineers are responsible for design of the building elements (foundations, columns, beams) that support all other building elements.

not being entirely dismissive but again it would be better for them to have a demolitions company and structural engineers support them.

as for A&E well there opinion on this subject(demolition) is irrelivent

seannash

Soveriegn wrote: »

True, the invasion was planned prior to 9/11.

They are quoted as saying... "we need a new pearl harbour"

If they didn't plan it (which they did), they got very lucky.

sovereign ill wait til you watch the video i linked you tomorrow.im not dodging this question but my response will be the response that the video provides

digme

Soveriegn wrote: »

300+ architects and engineers with hundreds of thousands of hours of experience all concur that explosives were used.

Find me 300+ architects and engineers with hundreds of thousands of hours of experience all concur that explosives were not used, and you have a case.

Who really cares anymore?
All I care about is who and why,I couldn't give a toss about how any more.Planes, no planes, bombs, no bombs, go ahead waste your time on the sh!te they put out on purpose.

People are sick and people are dying, who gives a flying fck if they had carebears with hacksaws cutting the god dam beams....
China is awake and roaring like a motherfcker, that's why they needed to get into Afghanistan and the surrounding countries.

seannash

digme wrote: »

Who really cares anymore?
All I care about is who and why,I couldn't give a toss about how any more.

unfortunately the how determines the who and why.

if it were indeed to be a controlled exlosion it would mean it was an inside job.

if it was the fact it was terrorists the blame would lie with them

so determining how it was done also determines the who and why.

digme

America is done and they knew that years before 2001,the how is fruitless.

Divorce Referendum

Im surprised that there was no loud bangs prior to collapse and light from the charges of the explosives seen or heard in that video. I thought considering all the guys that are certain it is an controlled explosion would have evidence of that.

digme

The so called evidence is video, that is all,the rest was shipped off
to china to be melted down.There is no evidence.

Anyway as I said they predicted chinas dominance 30 years ago.
China's economy grew at an average rate of 10% per year during
the period 1990–2004, the highest growth rate in the world.

Soveriegn

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

No plane: The damage from the impact from tower 1 and 2 did alot of damage

Fire collapsed all the main support columns simultaneously: The fire weakened the structural steel and caused the failure of the penthouse as shown in your video. The weight of this penthouse caused a vertical progression of failure to the damage below caused by the towers

Pancake: Wasnt the pancake theory debunked yonks ago.

Damage from debris but stood for 7 hours: Thats because it was the damage plus the fire weaking the structure that caused the collapse.

Who told you that fire weakened it ?

Divorce Referendum

Soveriegn wrote: »

Who told you that fire weakened it ?

Am the fire fighters were fighting the fire and evacuated the building because they were afraid it would collapse when it started to creak. Thats the testimony of the firefighters. What have you got to prove the fire didnt weaken it.

Soveriegn

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Am the fire fighters were fighting the fire and evacuated the building because they were afraid it would collapse when it started to creak. Thats the testimony of the firefighters. What have you got to prove the fire didnt weaken it.

Firefighters also stated they saw and heard explosions, like bombs going off. It looked like they had planned to take down a building.

Soveriegn

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Am the fire fighters were fighting the fire and evacuated the building because they were afraid it would collapse when it started to creak. Thats the testimony of the firefighters. What have you got to prove the fire didnt weaken it.

I have not heard that testimony.

seannash

Soveriegn wrote: »

Who told you that fire weakened it ?

from the report

• An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

• Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

• Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

i think it was more damage from debris but the fire definitely contributed as it was buring for 7 hours.if i recall correctly there wasnt an attemt to extinguish it either becuase the structure was deemed unsafe


alot of people have a hard time believeing that the damage was so sever from the debris because it occured on the south side of the building and most of the pictrues are of the north side

this is a pic of the south west corner of the building

this damage was retty representitive of the damage across the whole southside of the building.as i said most of the video and photos are taken from the front which did not take the brunt of the impact

seannash

Soveriegn wrote: »

I have not heard that testimony.

you will tomorrow once you watch that video:)

i presume divorce referendum has checked out the video too:)

Divorce Referendum

Soveriegn wrote: »

I have not heard that testimony.

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged." Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, "A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side." Captain Chris Boyle recalls, "On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors

There ya go.

Soveriegn

seannash wrote: »

Almost looks like it could topple over.

seannash

Soveriegn wrote: »

Almost looks like it could topple over.

once you understand how the building was built youll see why it didnt topple over

but yeah its a good representation of the type of damage that was caused across the whole southside of the building,its hardly the minimal amount of damage that the pics taken from the northside would have you believe

Divorce Referendum

seannash wrote: »

you will tomorrow once you watch that video:)

i presume divorce referendum has checked out the video too

I watched some of it before havent seen it all though so might take a look tomorrow. The pentagon thing was crazy, getting the angle of the plane and location of the hole conviently wrong:rolleyes:

Soveriegn

We'll see

Night lads

seannash

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

There ya go.

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged." Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, "A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side." Captain Chris Boyle recalls, "On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors

im also pretty sure that, after witnessing the total collapse of two huge structures that day coupled with the amount of firemen lost in those collapses,they werent gonna take any chances and as such proceeded with tremendous caution

after all that ,hearing the building creaking wouldnt inspire confidence in its safety

seannash

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

I watched some of it before havent seen it all though so might take a look tomorrow. The pentagon thing was crazy, getting the angle of the plane and location of the hole conviently wrong:rolleyes:

ha ha yeah that was nuts alright.

i know many CTers regard loose change as an unreliable source as it is but alot of the arguments are the same as the ones brought up here.

Divorce Referendum

Soveriegn wrote: »

We'll see

Night lads

Good night. I await you bringing this up again tomorrow;)

ihateclowns11

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

The fire didn't have to be hot enough to melt steel. It only had to be hot enough to weaken the steel. If the fireproofing around the steel was damaged as a result of the impact of the plane, the fire could have been acting directly on the steel, causing it to lose its strength. Steel is designed to certain limits with an additional safety factor. But the impact of the plane, the damage sustained to structural members and fireproofing on other members, means that the resultant fire could weaken the steel enough to make them lose their structural integrity. This adds more loading onto other steel members which weren't damaged. Even with the safety factors, the additional loading and directional forces could cause these steel members to fail too.

And steel-framed buildings had collapsed prior to 9/11, just on a smaller scale, where fireproofing regulations would not be as stringent or important. Steel frame buildings are required to have fireproofing to ensure safe evacuation of the building and to attempt to extinguish the fire.



You could with an internal collapse. If interior structural columns failed, any structural members above it wouldn't have the support it is supposed to, causing the interior steel members to collapse as they're being pulled down. This is why the penthouse could have sank first. The steel members beneath could have failed, pulling the columns supporting the penthouse down. As this is happening, due to the internal collapse, the steel members throughout the building would have additional loading and directional forces, thereby providing little resistance when the entire building began to collapse

Ok then what about building number 7,no plane hit it and it just collapsed for no reason,explain that one.

seannash

ihateclowns11 wrote: »

Ok then what about building number 7,no plane hit it and it just collapsed for no reason,explain that one.

read the thread,its all there.specifically the last 6 pages

alastair

Soveriegn wrote: »

Who told you that fire weakened it ?

On August 21, 2008, NIST released its draft report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, beginning a period for public comments. In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events. NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers. But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, including on floor 13, where a critical interior column buckled. With the buckling of that column, adjacent columns also failed along with the floor structure above. This triggered a vertical progression of floor failures to the roof. The collapse then progressed east-to-west across the structure, and ultimately the entire structure collapsed. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm