Piece of 9/11 plane found

NuckingFacker

Bruthal wrote: »

Now we need generators to be on a particular side of a building for it to rule out an inside job.

So that's the end of research being much use there.

No, but if it was "generator fires" that caused Tower 7 to collapse(and I've never seen a generator fire, but there you go and I service dozens of them every week..) it could be relevant where those generators were. Also, generators for buildings have their tanks built into them, under the engine, in a very tough steel structural cage. Just curious.

Nino Brown

yizorselves wrote: »

The Pentagon apparently has the most surveillance of any building in the world. Yet we have never seen footage of flight 77 crashing into it. Not one bit. Wheres the tail off the plane? The fuselage, all that typical stuff after a crash, nowhere.

Also it is not possible for a 757 to manoeuvre the way they say it did before crashing into it

The pentagon is one the US's highest security buildings, probably not the best idea to go releasing videos of it to the general public.
They did release one video of the plane hitting the building, it's blurry but planes tend to travel pretty fast.
There were numerous airplane parts found at the pentagon including engines, and fuselage, oddly enough the pictures don't appear on conspiracy sites, but anybody with half a brain can look elsewhere for those pictures.
There were also dozens of witnesses who saw the plane hit.
If it was a missile that hit it, what flattened the lampposts across the street? And what happened to the people who got on flight 77 and never went home?
The conspiracy sites twist things around, and people take what they are reading as gospel, when its total bullsh!t. I assume when you refer to the maneuverability you mean this quote
Air traffic controller - "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air-traffic controllers, that that was a military plane"
The plane was flying faster and turning sharper that a commercial ailriner usually flies, so they they thought it was military, can you show me who said a 757 is incapable of those maneuvers that's not from a conspiracy site?

NuckingFacker

I might just be me but I'm starting to reckon we might have to do a bit of overtime if we want to get this sorted tonight. Are they expecting a definitive verdict in the next 24hrs? The pressure is unreal. Who knew it would come down to an AH verdict after all this time?

kneemos

NuckingFacker wrote: »

No, but if it was "generator fires" that caused Tower 7 to collapse(and I've never seen a generator fire, but there you go and I service dozens of them every week..) it could be relevant where those generators were. Also, generators for buildings have their tanks built into them, under the engine, in a very tough steel structural cage. Just curious.

It's unclear apparently some say yeah some say nay but the above ground tank war broken,either before or after the collapse,there was also thick black smoke consistant with a diesel fire before the collapse.

Nino Brown

NuckingFacker wrote: »

No, but if it was "generator fires" that caused Tower 7 to collapse(and I've never seen a generator fire, but there you go and I service dozens of them every week..) it could be relevant where those generators were. Also, generators for buildings have their tanks built into them, under the engine, in a very tough steel structural cage. Just curious.

I think the fact that 2 of the worlds biggest buildings had collapsed next door is also worth a mention as contributing factor.

NuckingFacker

Bruthal wrote: »

Yea but if you see planes hit buildings, large portion of the support structure gone, and a while later, what's left of the structure fails, and knowing steel loses lots of its strength when heated, your cynical pre conditioning means that you can't allow yourself to see the simplest explanation is likely the actual one.

I'll actually bother pulling you on this one. You see, with intense heat, steel fails predictably, 1000 degrees is cool, in steel terms. Oxyacetaleyne cuts at 6000 degreees, Plasma cuts at 20000 degrees, so the steel aint getting "cut" at 1000 degrees, it becomes pliable and sags. And it sags predictably, i.e at a predictable rate. So, as the steel on the floors with fires gets heated(if it even can as it is encased in concrete which shields it from heat) it sags downwards under the load from above. Slowly. So the floor above should compress down onto the lower level, as it's a vertical pillar design - but it's not going to freefall and impart any greater loading than the original loading imposed and designed for. I.e, boll0x did it just fail and freefall. Steel doesn't do that, it sags. I'm starting fireproofing a steel structure in the morning btw, offices as it happens - will be stringently inspected by the Local Fire-Officer. They're very good at what they do. I doubt the NY ones are much different.:) If you're demolishing a steel building and you don't want it to just slump a bit and stop, you have to cut and weaken all the structural steel on one side or one level. Literally cut it up and blast it out with charges. They just do not fall down.

Jonny7

NuckingFacker wrote: »

I might just be me but I'm starting to reckon we might have to do a bit of overtime if we want to get this sorted tonight. Are they expecting a definitive verdict in the next 24hrs? The pressure is unreal. Who knew it would come down to an AH verdict after all this time?

12 years is a pretty long time.

Jonny7

NuckingFacker wrote: »

I'll actually bother pulling you on this one. You see, with intense heat, steel fails predictably, 1000 degrees is cool, in steel terms. Oxyacetaleyne cuts at 6000 degreees, Plasma cuts at 20000 degrees, so the steel aint getting "cut" at 1000 degrees, it becomes pliable and sags. And it sags predictably, i.e at a predictable rate. So, as the steel on the floors with fires gets heated(if it even can as it is encased in concrete which shields it from heat) it sags downwards under the load from above. Slowly. So the floor above should compress down onto the lower level, as it's a vertical pillar design - but it's not going to freefall and impart any greater loading than the original loading imposed and designed for. I.e, boll0x did it just fail and freefall. Steel doesn't do that, it sags. I'm starting fireproofing a steel structure in the morning btw, offices as it happens - will be stringently inspected by the Local Fire-Officer. They're very good at what they do. I doubt the NY ones are much different.:)

Yeah yeah..

about this ****ing bomb you said went off in Dublin?

NuckingFacker

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yeah yeah..

about this ****ing bomb you said went off in Dublin?

It was on the south side inner city, found out it was drug related and was aimed at some dealer collecting his kid from school. The disruption was unreal, but not a flicker on RTE or TV3 and both had camera crews there. Really puzzled me anyway.:) I'd just bought a new van and that was new in '99, so '99 it was. AFAIR.

NuckingFacker

Nino Brown wrote: »

I think the fact that 2 of the worlds biggest buildings had collapsed next door is also worth a mention as contributing factor.

Yus, but the Towers were all done falling down at the time Tower 7 "fell". They didn't fall onto it. They fell near it. Then, like someone shot it, down goes Tower 7. Maybe it fell from the fright it got.

Nino Brown

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Yus, but the Towers were all done falling down at the time Tower 7 "fell". They didn't fall onto it. They fell near it. Then, like someone shot it, down goes Tower 7. Maybe it fell from the fright it got.

That's not entirely true, parts of tower 1 actually hit WTC7, I'm not saying that brought it down, but it would have done major structural damage, that combined with raging fires could potentially bring a building down. Plus I would imagine that 2 giant skyscrapers falling right next door would be similar to experiencing 2 earth quakes in 1 day on top of all that.

IceFjoem

Nino Brown wrote: »

That's not entirely true, parts of tower 1 actually hit WTC7, I'm not saying that brought it down, but it would have done major structural damage, that combined with raging fires could potentially bring a building down. Plus I would imagine that 2 giant skyscrapers falling right next door would be similar to experiencing 2 earth quakes in 1 day on top of all that.

Not having a go or anything, and I'm not too keen on getting involved here, but to be fair I can't imagine that 'know' that "major structural damage" was done. All there is to go on in terms of damage from the falling towers, are the reports (from the official NIST report) of fire crews on the ground saying that there was damage to the south west corner of the building (I think it was south west, open to correction though) between floors 10 and 13.

If you have other information though fair enough.

Jonny7

Just a little reminder..

Anyone who is indirectly implying that the towers or WTC7 were brought down by explosives is automatically suggesting at the very minimum a massive conspiracy involving many within the US government, agencies, intelligence... without a single shred of evidence. Some sort of extraordinarily complex and risky plan to fly fuel-laden aircraft with Americans on board into buildings with 10's of thousands of Americans and at the same manage to set off explosives on the same level as the planes struck, demolish nearby buildings.. not one leak, not one whistle-blower.. completely fooling the inquiry, the city's entire police and fire departments, just about every demolition expert, engineer, specialist and every foreign intelligence agency as well as all domestic and world media..

Yet the most powerful man in the world couldn't get a blowjob without us all finding out.

Sorry please continue..

Nino Brown

IceFjoem wrote: »

Not having a go or anything, and I'm not too keen on getting involved here, but to be fair I can't imagine that 'know' that "major structural damage" was done. All there is to go on in terms of damage from the falling towers, are the reports (from the official NIST report) of fire crews on the ground saying that there was damage to the south west corner of the building (I think it was south west, open to correction though) between floors 10 and 13.

If you have other information though fair enough.

The firefighters said there was more then 3 floors of damaged, they knew the building was collapsing so they pulled everyone out. There are also videos of debris hitting WTC7, the same type of debris that took down the other buildings. Here are some pics of the damage

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

niallo27

Jonny7 wrote: »

Just a little reminder..

Anyone who is indirectly implying that the towers or WTC7 were brought down by explosives is automatically suggesting at the very minimum a massive conspiracy involving many within the US government, agencies, intelligence... without a single shred of evidence. Some sort of extraordinarily complex and risky plan to fly fuel-laden aircraft with Americans on board into buildings with 10's of thousands of Americans and at the same manage to set off explosives on the same level as the planes struck, demolish nearby buildings.. not one leak, not one whistle-blower.. completely fooling the inquiry, the city's entire police and fire departments, just about every demolition expert, engineer, specialist and every foreign intelligence agency as well as all domestic and world media..

Yet the most powerful man in the world couldn't get a blowjob without us all finding out.

Sorry please continue..

There was more money spent on investigating that blow job than there was on the 9/11 investigation. I'm just pointing out this fact not saying i think there was a conspiracy.

niallo27

Nino Brown wrote: »

The firefighters said there was more then 3 floors of damaged, they knew the building was collapsing so they pulled everyone out. There are also videos of debris hitting WTC7, the same type of debris that took down the other buildings. Here are some pics of the damage

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

It is odd it suffered a complete collapse while building directly under the twin towers only suffered partial collapse.

Ryu Hayabusa

I do not believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy but if it was I would suspect that the Jews would be behind it

Nino Brown

niallo27 wrote: »

It is odd it suffered a complete collapse while building directly under the twin towers only suffered partial collapse.

If you mean WTC5 it covered a much bigger area than WTC7 making it more stable and less likely to fully collapse, and the part that stayed standing was further from the towers than WT7.

niallo27

Nino Brown wrote: »

If you mean WTC5 it covered a much bigger area than WTC7 making it more stable and less likely to fully collapse, and the part that stayed standing was further from the towers than WT7.

I mean all the surrounding buildings. None of them suffered complete collapses.

Nino Brown

niallo27 wrote: »

I mean all the surrounding buildings. None of them suffered complete collapses.

How do you define partially collapsed then? Is there a percentage you would consider fully collapsed? Technically parts of the towers themselves were still standing.

IceFjoem

Nino Brown wrote: »

The firefighters said there was more then 3 floors of damaged, they knew the building was collapsing so they pulled everyone out. There are also videos of debris hitting WTC7, the same type of debris that took down the other buildings. Here are some pics of the damage

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

Yep my bad, floors 10 - 13 was in reference to a bulge in the corner, the full damage was subsequently concluded to be from stories 8 - 18.

7 steel columns between that corner and the south face were assessed as having being severed, although the NIST report concluded that this damage had no bearing on the collapse in the end and that the fire would have brought the building down anyway.

Tony EH

Jonny7 wrote: »

Just a little reminder..

Anyone who is indirectly implying that the towers or WTC7 were brought down by explosives is automatically suggesting at the very minimum a massive conspiracy involving many within the US government, agencies, intelligence... without a single shred of evidence. Some sort of extraordinarily complex and risky plan to fly fuel-laden aircraft with Americans on board into buildings with 10's of thousands of Americans and at the same manage to set off explosives on the same level as the planes struck, demolish nearby buildings.. not one leak, not one whistle-blower.. completely fooling the inquiry, the city's entire police and fire departments, just about every demolition expert, engineer, specialist and every foreign intelligence agency as well as all domestic and world media..

Yet the most powerful man in the world couldn't get a blowjob without us all finding out.

Sorry please continue..

That's because he chose to get a BJ off of some Jewish princess, who couldn't wait to spill her guts to anyone that was willing to listen.

JJayoo

I remember seeing BBC interview discussing the collapse of WTC7 but in the background you could see that it was still standing. There must have been a lot of confusion going on that day.

Nino Brown

JJayoo wrote: »

I remember seeing BBC interview discussing the collapse of WTC7 but in the background you could see that it was still standing. There must have been a lot of confusion going on that day.

Yeah, conspiracy theorists are huge fans of media clips like that when it helps their argument. But if the media disproves something they say it cant be trusted.
In the hours before 7 came down hundreds of people knew it was going to collapse and were discussing it, its not that crazy to suggest that somebody got their wires crossed.
Look what happened after Boston, even the police cheif was saying there was a bomb at the JFK library, when these things happen, there is huge confusion, it doesn't mean anything.

The Barefoot Pizza Thief

JJayoo wrote: »

I remember seeing BBC interview discussing the collapse of WTC7 but in the background you could see that it was still standing. There must have been a lot of confusion going on that day.

You mean this one? Wasn't it shown to be a hoax?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI

JJayoo

Nino Brown wrote: »

Yeah, conspiracy theorists are huge fans of media clips like that when it helps their argument. But if the media disproves something they say it cant be trusted.
In the hours before 7 came down hundreds of people knew it was going to collapse and were discussing it, its not that crazy to suggest that somebody got their wires crossed.
Look what happened after Boston, even the police cheif was saying there was a bomb at the JFK library, when these things happen, there is huge confusion, it doesn't mean anything.

Did you miss the

There must have been a lot of confusion going on that day

part of my post?

JJayoo

The Barefoot Pizza Thief wrote: »

You mean this one? Wasn't it shown to be a hoax?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI

Doubt it was a hoax just bbc getting mixed up

Nino Brown

JJayoo wrote: »

Did you miss the part of my post?

No, I'm agreeing with you

The Barefoot Pizza Thief

President Bartlet's not having it either:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WMW83I33pI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_olaIJTv8c

endacl

Too many YT clips!!!

Starting to look like a CT's thread.

mickdw

NuckingFacker wrote: »

I'll actually bother pulling you on this one. You see, with intense heat, steel fails predictably, 1000 degrees is cool, in steel terms. Oxyacetaleyne cuts at 6000 degreees, Plasma cuts at 20000 degrees, so the steel aint getting "cut" at 1000 degrees, it becomes pliable and sags. And it sags predictably, i.e at a predictable rate. So, as the steel on the floors with fires gets heated(if it even can as it is encased in concrete which shields it from heat) it sags downwards under the load from above. Slowly. So the floor above should compress down onto the lower level, as it's a vertical pillar design - but it's not going to freefall and impart any greater loading than the original loading imposed and designed for. I.e, boll0x did it just fail and freefall. Steel doesn't do that, it sags. I'm starting fireproofing a steel structure in the morning btw, offices as it happens - will be stringently inspected by the Local Fire-Officer. They're very good at what they do. I doubt the NY ones are much different.:) If you're demolishing a steel building and you don't want it to just slump a bit and stop, you have to cut and weaken all the structural steel on one side or one level. Literally cut it up and blast it out with charges. They just do not fall down.

I think you misunderstand the effect of heat on the structural steel frame.
Yes, the steel loses strength but you appear tp believe that only the vectical columns buckle and result in the floor as a whole dropping in line witj the buckling action. This is a very wrong assumption. Many steel elements will lose strength. Floor beams with no longer be capable of holding floor. In effect as the steel weakens, the floor will basically slip off its support beams, falling to the floor below in a random fashion.
I am a Civil Engineer and I am happy that the fire would eventually cause some level of collapse. I am not convinced by the manner of thw collapse though.

knucklehead6

endacl wrote: »

Too many YT clips!!!

Starting to look like a CT's thread.

STARTING???

This thread went waaaay into the wacky wonderful world of CT about 30 seconds after it was posted.

April O Neill

I love September 11th conspirary theorists.

"But but but WTC 7!"

:pac:

NuckingFacker

mickdw wrote: »

I think you misunderstand the effect of heat on the structural steel frame.
Yes, the steel loses strength but you appear tp believe that only the vectical columns buckle and result in the floor as a whole dropping in line witj the buckling action. This is a very wrong assumption. Many steel elements will lose strength. Floor beams with no longer be capable of holding floor. In effect as the steel weakens, the floor will basically slip off its support beams, falling to the floor below in a random fashion.
I am a Civil Engineer and I am happy that the fire would eventually cause some level of collapse. I am not convinced by the manner of thw collapse though.

Mmm. I use rather a lot of oxy-acetalyene every day. Go figure though. And exceed the load capacities of the lower floors? And as the floor beams slip, do the vertical columns also slip? Where do they slip to?

mickdw

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Mmm. I use rather a lot of oxy-acetalyene every day. Go figure though. And exceed the load capacities of the lower floors? And as the floor beams slip, do the vertical columns also slip? Where do they slip to?

I dont know the structural makeup of the building but im assuming there were concrete floors supported on steel beams. The deformed horizontal beams would basically drop the floor without dropping themselves. The vertical members would be deformed with heat also but would imo in the first instance simply be deformed and moved out of required position again allowing floor support beams to move and drop the floor. This is my impression of what would have happened for the first floor that would have fallen. After that, the excessive loadings of falling floors would take all with them, bending and destoying perfectly good structure.

Bruthal

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Mmm. I use rather a lot of oxy-acetalyene every day. Go figure though. And exceed the load capacities of the lower floors? And as the floor beams slip, do the vertical columns also slip? Where do they slip to?

Plenty of people use stuff every day, without having a technical clue. Plenty are qualified in areas where again, cluelessness abounds.

Bruthal

NuckingFacker wrote: »

I'll actually bother pulling you on this one. You see, with intense heat, steel fails predictably, 1000 degrees is cool, in steel terms. Oxyacetaleyne cuts at 6000 degreees, Plasma cuts at 20000 degrees, so the steel aint getting "cut" at 1000 degrees, it becomes pliable and sags. And it sags predictably, i.e at a predictable rate. So, as the steel on the floors with fires gets heated(if it even can as it is encased in concrete which shields it from heat) it sags downwards under the load from above. Slowly. So the floor above should compress down onto the lower level, as it's a vertical pillar design - but it's not going to freefall and impart any greater loading than the original loading imposed and designed for. I.e, boll0x did it just fail and freefall. Steel doesn't do that, it sags. I'm starting fireproofing a steel structure in the morning btw, offices as it happens - will be stringently inspected by the Local Fire-Officer. They're very good at what they do. I doubt the NY ones are much different.:) If you're demolishing a steel building and you don't want it to just slump a bit and stop, you have to cut and weaken all the structural steel on one side or one level. Literally cut it up and blast it out with charges. They just do not fall down.

You seem to be forgetting, nearly all steel columns on one side of the building were cut completely by the plane. How much do the remaining columns need to weaken before maybe 50,000 tons above them cause failure?

And, clearly the failure started at the impact floor. Its on video for all to see. Rather amazing how your dynamite or whatever ct idea you have, just happened to blow the floor the planes hit?

How did they manage that, told the terrorist pilots which floor to crash into was it?

And, how would your fire proofing stand up to an airliner flying into the area you just fire proofed? I'd think your fire proofing would be blasted off the steel, would it not?

Nino Brown

Bruthal wrote: »

You seem to be forgetting, nearly all steel columns on one side of the building were cut completely by the plane. How much do the remaining columns need to weaken before maybe 50,000 tons above them cause failure?

And, clearly the failure started at the impact floor. Its on video for all to see. Rather amazing how your dynamite or whatever ct idea you have, just happened to blow the floor the planes hit?

How did they manage that, told the terrorist pilots which floor to crash into was it?

And, how would your fire proofing stand up to an airliner flying into the area you just fire proofed? I'd think your fire proofing would be blasted off the steel, would it not?

We're talking about WTC7 here.

Bruthal

Nino Brown wrote: »

We're talking about WTC7 here.

Are we? I thought it was about some wheels.

But I'm replying to a post where he said he was pulling me on my post. And that post was clearly about the towers.

NuckingFacker

Nino Brown wrote: »

We're talking about WTC7 here.

Bruthal wrote: »

Are we? I thought it was about some wheels.

But I'm replying to a post where he said he was pulling me on my post. And that post was clearly about the towers.

I was guffing on about tower 7. That's the one I really don't get how it fell. I was also moaning about the generators at tower 7-which I thought you were commenting on.

Bruthal

NuckingFacker wrote: »

I was guffing on about tower 7. That's the one I really don't get how it fell. I was also moaning about the generators at tower 7-which I thought you were commenting on.

There are mysteries being made where none exist. Passports found intact = conspiracy, when there is nothing mysterious about it.

Towers fall into own footprint = conspiracy, when clearly they fell into a huge mess, straight down due to a combination of design, and nature of failure, and ultimately, gravity.

Plumes seen coming from lower floors = conspiracy, where as the reality is compressed air blasting out through windows.

Flash seen as nose of plane contacts buildings = conspiracy, where as the reality is metal to metal contact with static discharge. Identical can be seen with slow motion of bullets hitting steel plates.

Building 7 was likely badly damaged by falling debris. And went on fire. It does not seem like some high level mystery.

NuckingFacker

Bruthal wrote: »

There are mysteries being made where none exist. Passports found intact = conspiracy, when there is nothing mysterious about it.

Towers fall into own footprint = conspiracy, when clearly they fell into a huge mess, straight down due to a combination of design, and nature of failure, and ultimately, gravity.

Plumes seen coming from lower floors = conspiracy, where as the reality is compressed air blasting out through windows.

Flash seen as nose of plane contacts buildings = conspiracy, where as the reality is metal to metal contact with static discharge. Identical can be seen with slow motion of bullets hitting steel plates.

Building 7 was likely badly damaged by falling debris. And went on fire. It does not seem like some high level mystery.

Ok.

IceFjoem

mickdw wrote: »

I dont know the structural makeup of the building but im assuming there were concrete floors supported on steel beams. The deformed horizontal beams would basically drop the floor without dropping themselves. The vertical members would be deformed with heat also but would imo in the first instance simply be deformed and moved out of required position again allowing floor support beams to move and drop the floor. This is my impression of what would have happened for the first floor that would have fallen. After that, the excessive loadings of falling floors would take all with them, bending and destoying perfectly good structure.

I'm not saying you're wrong about anything, but you are assuming when you shouldn't be tbf. Assumptions have no place in this debate, for OR against. You might as well say "I have no interest in evidence, I'm just going to speak my mind and assume I'm right".


The thing about the official NIST report that was formed on WTC 7 is that they could only make an educated guess as to what really happened. They designed models to try to figure out how the building could have failed based on a number of videos shot externally, and based their report on that and that alone. No physical evidence (of the steel) was used whatsoever. They speculate as to which beams failed but that's it. (I'm genuinely not implying anything here, just giving facts)


Something that I find interesting about the report is that it says in one section that no witnesses reported explosions, but then goes on in a later chapter to say that witnesses did in fact report explosions but that they disregarded them as the explosions that were recorded on the audio weren't loud enough to be qualified as demolition explosives (I'd like further elaboration on this though [?how did they come to a conclusion on the proximity of the explosions?]). Considering that they say they value witness testimony in one section I find it odd that they disregard it in another as the volumes of the explosives recorded don't match their parameters of which explosives would be effective (if someone has further information on this I'd have no problem acknowledging it though). It just strikes me as being something that requires more investigation. (maybe it doesn't though, anyone got more information?)


The truth is, I can't say with conviction that I know there was a controlled demolition because I feel there isn't enough evidence, but there is one thing that I find particularly curious:


The building fell in 5.4 seconds, this has been broken into 3 separate stages. Measurements and times concentrate obviously on the roof. From the report:

• Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
• Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
• Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

The report here details the acceleration that the building experienced at each of the three stages. For 2.25 seconds (stage 2, the most significant portion) the building fell at free fall speed. That means there would have had to be exactly 0 resistance from everything below the roof. The building would have had to have been literally (not "almost", or "close to", but "literally") disappearing below it. Coming from an engineering background I find this quite striking. If you don't find this piece of information as interesting as I do, I reckon you haven't thought about it enough.


This is the FAQ from the report if anyone's interested:
[URL="hhttp://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfmttp://"]http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm[/URL]


If there's anything I'm missing or mistaken about, absolutely let me know though.

Nino Brown

Despite the overwhelming evidence that these buildings were brought down by a terrorist attack, conspiracy theorist will always cling to the few little details that haven't be explained, and if somebody does explain that they'll move on to something else, until people get sick of debunking the theories, and they think they're right.
For arguments sake, lets say this was a government conspiracy, it would have been the best planned, and best executed operation in the history if the world, but apparently it didn't occur to any of the conspirators that bringing the buildings down in a controlled demolition might look suspicious? I mean if they really wanted WTC7 gone that badly, surely a McVeigh style truck bomb would have been more plausible. But instead they somehow managed to plant the charges in a functioning building without being noticed, then brought it down in the most suspicious manner possible, and they did all this why? If Casus Belli is what they were after I'm pretty sure the twin towers and pentagon was enough to do the job.

Bruthal

IceFjoem wrote: »

I'm not saying you're wrong about anything, but you are assuming when you shouldn't be tbf. Assumptions have no place in this debate, for OR against. You might as well say "I have no interest in evidence, I'm just going to speak my mind and assume I'm right".


The thing about the official NIST report that was formed on WTC 7 is that they could only make an educated guess as to what really happened. They designed models to try to figure out how the building could have failed based on a number of videos shot externally, and based their report on that and that alone. No physical evidence (of the steel) was used whatsoever. They speculate as to which beams failed but that's it. (I'm genuinely not implying anything here, just giving facts)


Something that I find interesting about the report is that it says in one section that no witnesses reported explosions, but then goes on in a later chapter to say that witnesses did in fact report explosions but that they disregarded them as the explosions that were recorded on the audio weren't loud enough to be qualified as demolition explosives (I'd like further elaboration on this though [?how did they come to a conclusion on the proximity of the explosions?]). Considering that they say they value witness testimony in one section I find it odd that they disregard it in another as the volumes of the explosives recorded don't match their parameters of which explosives would be effective (if someone has further information on this I'd have no problem acknowledging it though). It just strikes me as being something that requires more investigation. (maybe it doesn't though, anyone got more information?)


The truth is, I can't say with conviction that I know there was a controlled demolition because I feel there isn't enough evidence, but there is one thing that I find particularly curious:


The building fell in 5.4 seconds, this has been broken into 3 separate stages. Measurements and times concentrate obviously on the roof. From the report:




The report here details the acceleration that the building experienced at each of the three stages. For 2.25 seconds (stage 2, the most significant portion) the building fell at free fall speed. That means there would have had to be exactly 0 resistance from everything below the roof. The building would have had to have been literally (not "almost", or "close to", but "literally") disappearing below it. Coming from an engineering background I find this quite striking. If you don't find this piece of information as interesting as I do, I reckon you haven't thought about it enough.
.

What did they measure this 2.25 seconds distance of fall with, the pre installed lasers was it? Because to measure acceleration for that time, would require very accurate distance measurements. Unless you personally measured it yourself, you must be including assumptions that someone else measured it correctly, and they have no place here, right?

What I'm getting at is, tens of thousands of tons of building collapsing, is not going to be far short of free fall speed at some time during collapse, and this difference over 2.5 seconds, between free fall speed and actual building fall speed, won't be much. How did you measure the distance travelled in that time frame?

Even if it is free fall, or almost, (a parachutist never reaches true free fall speed) did dynamite make part of the building disappear so the rest could free fall? This free fall stuff as evidence of conspiracy, is again total rubbish, and when people mention their engineering backgrounds as part of the strengthening of their point, that is just meaningless, unless all engineering people agree with each other.

DeanAustin

The conspiracy theories on this really annoy me sometimes but then I just feel sorry for the theorists and pity the lives they must lead.

Haven't read through this thread as I've read a million like it but sometimes things happen just like the Government tells you they happened. No-one is out to get you and sometimes people tell the truth.

It is beyond preposterous and very disrespectful to think that this was an inside job. There is no way that this could have been pulled off in the way that some loopers seem to think. Just too many holes and, human nature being what it is, no way that the amount of people that would have been involved would have kept it quiet.

RossFixxxed

While the rest of us suffer from the incompetence of politicians and public figures, the CT crowd must live a terrifying nightmare filled with incredibly ingenius shodowy figures capapable of pulling off an immense web of deciet. It just sounds horrible.

Here's my quick question: IF it was acutally a conspiracy surely the planes hitting the buildings was more than enough to do whatever the conspiracy was for? Why bother bringing them down too?

Look it is always worth investigating, but thousands of innocent people died and thousands more were deeply traumatised by the events that day. Let's get a bit of perspective on this yeah?

Tony EH

We'll probably never get the full, undisclosed, story of what happened over ten years ago at this stage and regardless of where one sits on the topic, I think everyone would agree that official story is lacking, like official stories always do.

However, while conspiracy touters can get tedious at times, the other side of the fence can get equally lamentable. Simply dismissing everything as "Conspiracy" (large C) is quite dumb as large groups conspire (small c) all the time to get what they desire. I would certainly be reluctant to buy into the theory that the US government, or elements within, conspired, planned and orchastrated, entirely, the attacks on September 11, 2001, but they damn well conspired for their war in a Iraq, over a long period, and used 9/11 to achieve their aims.

People's visual representation of a conspiracy is usually a shadowy cabal of shady characters ensconced in some room, pulling the strings of the world and laughing maniacally as they plot and plan. But, often, the groups conspiring are made up simply of ordinary people who want to reach the same goal and government is no different. Whether they are pushing an agenda for war, or simply getting everything together for an election. Both fit the bill of a conspiracy. Even the fact that a lot of political party members will subordinate their real opinions on a given matter to that of their party is enough for the moniker to be applied. 90% of the time, conspiracies are relatively innocuous affairs, but they certainly occur.

There's only one thing worse than saying everything is a Conspiracy and that's simply dismissing everything as a Conspiracy.

Duggy747

These 9/11 threads always read like an episode of The X-Files.

DeanAustin

Tony EH wrote: »

We'll probably never get the full, undisclosed, story of what happened over ten years ago at this stage and regardless of where one sits on the topic, I think everyone would agree that official story is lacking, like official stories always do.

However, while conspiracy touters can get tedious at times, the other side of the fence can get equally lamentable. Simply dismissing everything as "Conspiracy" (large C) is quite dumb as large groups conspire (small c) all the time to get what they desire. I would certainly be reluctant to buy into the theory that the US government, or elements within, conspired, planned and orchastrated, entirely, the attacks on September 11, 2001, but they damn well conspired for their war in a Iraq, over a long period, and used 9/11 to achieve their aims.

People's visual representation of a conspiracy is usually a shadowy cabal of shady characters ensconced in some room, pulling the strings of the world and laughing maniacally as they plot and plan. But, often, the groups conspiring are made up simply of ordinary people who want to reach the same goal and government is no different. Whether they are pushing an agenda for war, or simply getting everything together for an election. Both fit the bill of a conspiracy. Even the fact that a lot of political party members will subordinate their real opinions on a given matter to that of their party is enough for the moniker to be applied. 90% of the time, conspiracies are relatively innocuous affairs, but they certainly occur.

There's only one thing worse than saying everything is a Conspiracy and that's simply dismissing everything as a Conspiracy.

No doubt the US government used what happened on 9/11 as part of their rationale to go into Iraq. Whether they cynically did this or just got washed away in the hysteria, I'm not sure of.

Either way, that's a completely different issue to me. The US didn't plot 9/11 and they didn't willingly allow it to happen.