Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 21st, 2009 #1201
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,203
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

Ahhh... Mohammed Atta's fireproofed paper passport. I guess its fireproofing wasn't dislodged by the impact. I remember how they flashed it all over the news. It survived the fireball, a little charred but okay nonetheless.
__________________
Alex Linder: "Want to rebel White teen? Become a White Nationalist."
vnnforum.com | freedomsite.org | douglaschristie.com
RACE IS NOT SKIN COLOR. LOOK HERE http://i.imgur.com/mSKW5An.png AND HERE http://i.imgur.com/6O86hP6.png
 
Old March 21st, 2009 #1202
Slamin2
gassed at least 5 times
 
Slamin2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wolzek (get it?)
Posts: 1,176
Slamin2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DouglasReed View Post
I'm not sure what "the no plane thing" refers to. Do you mean at the Pentagon?
There are twoofers that believe no planes hit the Towers, that what thousands saw with their own eyes never happened. Even the no planers are split over hologram technology or just the media faking the live shots.

Almost as bad as the space beam star wars crowd.
__________________
RabbitNoMore

But all jews do speak in absolutes though. Just like you.

-----------

Define idiot
 
Old March 21st, 2009 #1203
A.S.
Diligence
 
A.S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,450
A.S.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonoleth Stiltskin View Post
Also, the fire wasn't the sole cause of the damage and subsequent structural failure
But we are told over and over (by those who defend the official 9-11 story) that the main cause of the collapse of the twin towers was weakening of their steel structure due to fire. When that is challenged, proponents of the official story then try and shift focus to structural damage.

The impact of the plane PLUS fire could still not have caused a complete collapse straight down.

Let us refer back to my analogy about sticking the 6ft steel rod in the ground. Except this time, we don't simply heat the rod with a blowtorch at the 4ft mark. This time, we file away half the rod at the 4ft mark, and then heat it with the blowtorch at the same spot we just filed. You will STILL get the same result: the portion of the rod ABOVE the 4ft mark will fall off, but the portion below the 4ft mark will remain standing.

If fire + structural damage caused the collapse of the WTC buildings, then why have I never seen a photo or video of WTC7 that shows significant structural damage to the building? All I have been offered as 'proof' that this building was 'severely damaged' by falling debris are blurry photos which:

a)Show no such 'severe' damage.
b)Show only limited fires burning on a few floors.

I have done a little research on your steel frame vs. reinforced concrete argument. You are correct that to compare the fires in the WTC buildings to the Hotel Mandarin fire in Beijing is not valid. However, we don't need to compare them, since other steel-framed buildings have burned and not collapsed.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...e/windsor.html

Quote:
Steel Versus Steel-Reinforced Concrete

In fact, comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick. Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses.
So, no collapses by fire in other steel framed skyscrapers. We are supposed to believe that the WTC towers and WTC 7 all collapsed by fire, FOR THE FIRST THREE TIMES IN HISTORY, on 9-11.

Quote:
In contrast to the WTC Towers, the Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete reinforced by thin sections of rebar. 4 The concrete pillars in the Windsor building are clearly visible in the photographs showing the intact core exposed by the collapsed facade. The very light construction of the perimeter, described below, makes it clear that the core was the main load-bearing component of the building.

Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of heat. Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the hotspots into the larger structure. As long as the fire does not consume the larger structure, this heat conductivity will keep the temperatures of the frame well below the fire temperatures.
The same is not true of steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not a good thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar inside the concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding matrix of concrete.

Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel. This is because concrete has a small percentage of latent moisture, which is converted to steam by heat. Thus, a large fire can gradually erode a concrete structure to the point of collapse, whereas a fire can only threaten a steel-framed structure if it elevates steel temperatures to such an extent that it causes failures.

Windsor Building Partial Collapse
The observation that the Windsor Building is the only skyscraper to have suffered even a partial collapse as a result of fire suggests that the use of steel-reinforced-concrete framing was responsible. A closer look at the incident shows reality to be more complex. The portion of the building that collapsed consisted of the outer portions of floor slabs and perimeter walls throughout the upper third of the building (the 21st through 32nd floors). The outer walls consisted of steel box columns arranged on 1.8 meter centers and connected by narrow spandrel plates. The columns had square cross-sections 120mm on a side, and were fabricated of C-sections 7mm thick welded together. (these had a fraction of the dimensions, and were spaced about twice as far apart as the perimeter columns of the Twin Towers.) The perimeter columns lacked fireproofing throughout the upper third of the Windsor building. 5

The Windsor Building fire engulfed the upper third of the building, but also spread downward as low as the fourth floor. A report by two fire safety experts in Japan highlighted three causes for the very wide extent of the fire:

The lack of a sprinkler system
Incorrect installation of spandrels
The lack of fire prevention regulations in Spain
6

The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours, can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial.
 
Old March 21st, 2009 #1204
A.S.
Diligence
 
A.S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,450
A.S.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slamin2 View Post
There are twoofers that believe no planes hit the Towers, that what thousands saw with their own eyes never happened. Even the no planers are split over hologram technology or just the media faking the live shots.

Almost as bad as the space beam star wars crowd.
I agree, that's crazy.

Almost as bad are the morons who believe that a hijacker's passport fell to the ground after the plane impacted the tower, and was discovered not long thereafter.

You aren't one of those whack-jobs who believes that are you?
 
Old March 22nd, 2009 #1205
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Hans Norling
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsphaltSoldier88 View Post
But we are told over and over (by those who defend the official 9-11 story) that the main cause of the collapse of the twin towers was weakening of their steel structure due to fire.
Well here is what Nist says:

Question: How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

NIST's Answer: The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.
http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

Quote:
When that is challenged, proponents of the official story then try and shift focus to structural damage.
  1. About 60% of the 60 columns of the impacted face of framed-tube (and about 13% of the total of 287 columns) were severed, and many more were significantly deflected. This caused stress redistribution, which significantly increased the load of some columns, near the load capacity for some of them.
  2. Fire insulation was stripped during aircraft impact by flying debris (without that, the towers would likely have survived). In consequence, many structural steel members heated up to 600±C (NIST 2005) (the structural steel used loses about 20% of its yield strength already at 300±C, NIST 2005, and exhibits significant visco-plasticity, or creep, above 450±, especially at high stresses that developed; see e.g. Cottrell 1964, p. 299; the press reports right after 9/11, indicating temperature in excess of 800±C, turned out to be groundless, but Bazant and Zhou's analysis did not depend on that).
  3. Differential thermal expansion, combined with heat-induced viscoplastic deformation, caused the floor trusses to sag. The sagging trusses pulled the perimeter columns inward (by about 1 m, NIST 2005). The bowing of columns served as a huge imperfection inducing multi-story buckling. The lateral deflections of some columns due to aircraft impact and differential thermal expansion also decreased buckling strength.

The combination of six effects:
a) overload of some columns due to initial stress redistribution,
b) lowering of yield limit and creep,
c) lateral deflections of many columns due to sagging floor trusses,
d) weakened lateral support due to reduced in-plane stiffess of sagging floors,
e) multi-story buckling of some columns (for which the critical load is an order of magnitude less than it is for one-story buckling), and
f) local plastic buckling of heated column webs finally led to buckling of columns (Fig. 1b). As a result, the upper part of tower fell, with little resistance, through at least one floor height, impacting the lower part of tower. This triggered progressive collapse because the kinetic energy of the falling upper part far exceeded the energy that could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing in the lower part of tower. (Bazant, Verdure, 2006)
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...Papers/466.pdf
*The Pulverization of Concrete in WTC 1 During the Collapse Events of 9-11
*Accounts of structural instability in the Twin Towers, Bowing of columns, Collapse expected.
*Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis
*Some links to studies and examples of the behavior of structural steel in fires.

Quote:
The impact of the plane PLUS fire could still not have caused a complete collapse straight down.

Let us refer back to my analogy about sticking the 6ft steel rod in the ground. Except this time, we don't simply heat the rod with a blowtorch at the 4ft mark. This time, we file away half the rod at the 4ft mark, and then heat it with the blowtorch at the same spot we just filed. You will STILL get the same result: the portion of the rod ABOVE the 4ft mark will fall off, but the portion below the 4ft mark will remain standing.
You can't really use, as a comparable example, a rigid solid rod and compare it to a structural skeletton of joints and sections. Structures are not trees.

Quote:
If fire + structural damage caused the collapse of the WTC buildings, then why have I never seen a photo or video of WTC7 that shows significant structural damage to the building? All I have been offered as 'proof' that this building was 'severely damaged' by falling debris are blurry photos which:

a)Show no such 'severe' damage.
b)Show only limited fires burning on a few floors.
Well look at these photos then:


Plus a couple of reels that filmed the ongoing fires that raged on the south-side of WTC7;
*WTC7 West and South side(filmed from the west side, showing the south side gushing out smoke from bottom and upward)

WTC7 North and South Side (filming north-side first then south-side, watch the rather notable difference).

WTC7 used an unconventional design of a load-bearing exterior wall (most building's walls are not structural; they're what are called "curtain walls," merely hung from the frame) and steel I-beam core you see, with relatively weak and light-weight open-wire floor trusses to connect the two and support each floor. It was these darn things that had to carry weight many times more than they were supposed to, they gave out after the east penthouse and floors under it went down.

The WTC7 was also notably damaged by, mostly, the debris from the WTC1 collapse, scooping out nearly a third of the face to the center and bottom (circa 10 stories and 25 percent of the building's depth) of the building. So the working hypothesis as described by the article below from Structure Magazine is;
1) Debris from WTC 1-2 collapses caused damage by impact and fire.
2) Fire significantly weakened structural steel and caused failure of one or more columns on the eastern side of the building, as evidenced in the sinking of east penthouse. This indicated a vertical progression of failure from the damage on the lower floors to the failure of the penthouse on the roof.
3) The sinking of east penthouse as well as the shifting of a clear kink from the east penthouse toward the middle of the structure, indicates that the collapse then progressed horizontally, as the localized failure of the eastern columns was distributed to the other columns through the transfer elements at floor 5 through 7.
4) Global collapse was the ultimate result.

*Structure Magazine; Single Point of Failure: "How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7"
*The Collapse of Building 7 (Jan., 2007, pdf); By Arthur Scheuerman, Battalion Chief FDNY (Retired), Former Deputy Chief Instructor Nassau County Fire Training Academy and high-rise Fire Safety Director.
*FDNY Chief of Department (ret.) Daniel Nigro; Addresses WTC 7 Conspiracy Theories.

A photo on the damage;
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7Corner.jpg


Quote:
Instead of the vertical beams terminating in the foundation, many of them terminate in these broad, horizontal trusses that span the width of the building. Because the building was basically hollow from the sixth floor down. It was built over this big Con Ed substation.

So those trusses carry these enormous loads far, far higher than we would see in a typical skyscraper. The combination of the falling debris - which greatly stressed the structure - raised the strain on these trusses. And then these fires that were fed in one case by a pressurized diesel fuel line, that raged for seven hours - and the current thinking of the engineers who investigated is more than enough to explain the collapse of the building.
And in fact when those trusses failed, what you would've seen was exactly what we did see, which is the building almost collapsing from the inside first.

-- Vincent Dunn, retired deputy FDNY fire chief and author of the textbook, "The Collapse of Burning Buildings",
Quote:
I have done a little research on your steel frame vs. reinforced concrete argument. You are correct that to compare the fires in the WTC buildings to the Hotel Mandarin fire in Beijing is not valid. However, we don't need to compare them, since other steel-framed buildings have burned and not collapsed.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...e/windsor.html
Can office fires cause large steel columns to buckle?(discusses the Windsor Building)
Excerpt thereof;
Quote:
How absurd are the CT arguments? CTs often use the Windsor Building fire to support their claim that the WTC buildings should not have collapsed, completely ignoring the fact that fire destroyed the Windsor’s steel. The WTC buildings had cores of steel, not concrete.
It's a completely different building all together, steel reinforced concrete is qutie different that a steel-frame building, generally they are much stronger and can carry 300 to 500 times their own weight as a structural entity, furthemore it can take fire a lot better. The steel buckled severely and collapsed in the Windsor building, if it hadn't been for the reinforced concrete the building would have fallen down like a ton of bricks so to speak.
And... WTC7 wasn't a steel reinforced concrete building!

http://www.geocities.com/factsnotfan...wer.html?20081
http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html

If buildings aren't able to collapse because of fires, why would firefighters and structural engineers be worried about the possibility of collapse during these fires?!?
Why cite an instance of the steel portion of a building completely collapsing due to fire if you're trying to prove it's impossible?

Quote:
Dr. Pal Chana of the British Cement Association demonstrated the relative likelihood of floor collapse in a steel versus concrete framed building, using the vivid example of the Madrid Windsor Tower fire which raged over 26 hours on 14-15 February 2005. This former landmark office block of 30 storeys featured a concrete core throughout, but with concrete columns up to the 21st floor and steel columns between the 22nd and 30th floors. Remarkably, despite the intensity and duration of the fire, the concrete floors and columns remained intact however, the steel supported floors above the 21st floor collapsed, leaving the concrete core in-situ and exposed.
http://www.concretefireforum.org.uk/main.asp?page=0
If it hadn't been for the reinforced concrete the building would have fallen down like a ton of bricks so to speak, so why cite an instance where the steel portion of a building completely collapsed due to fire if you're trying to argue it couldn't happen?
 
Old March 22nd, 2009 #1206
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Hans Norling
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsphaltSoldier88 View Post
Slamin2 and Jonoleth,

Do you believe the story about the hijacker's passport floating to the ground after the plane hit the tower?

Was this actually reported in the media? I'm not sure it was or where it originated.
It does appear a bit odd yes, especially if we are to assume someone planted it, however this article describes the seemingly strange event rather well:
http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

There were a lot of stuff found in the remains and debris that one wouldn't expect to have found. Other passports were found if I recall correctly, and a woman's wig, cushins etc.
 
Old March 22nd, 2009 #1207
A.S.
Diligence
 
A.S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,450
A.S.
Default

Thanks for the info Jonoleth. I am familiar with the NIST report, I suppose the bottom line here is that we could debate all day weather or not the fire/damage from planes could cause a collapse. For simplicity's sake, let us assume you (official story) are correct that it could cause a collapse. The question then becomes, what would the collapse look like? How extensive would it be? This is where the official story falls flat on it's face. Because it is quite obvious that the section ABOVE the impact/fires would collapse, but not the entire building below. Because...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonoleth Stiltskin View Post
You can't really use, as a comparable example, a rigid solid rod and compare it to a structural skeletton of joints and sections. Structures are not trees.
Sure I can, the same principles are at work. But if you like, we can modify my example. Let us make it 3 steel rods welded together every 2ft (this is analogous to the WTC tower's core) to create a 6ft rod. It doesn't really matter what we attach to this rod, the rod is the foundation holding the structure up (just as the cores in the twin towers).

Now, again, stick the rod in the ground, file and torch the rod at the 4ft mark, and what will happen? Same thing: portion of rod above the part filed/torched will fall over. Portion below won't.

It's interesting you just brushed this one aside so quickly. Apparently there is no convenient pre-written response for it that you can google? LOL

To be fair, the photos and video you show of the WTC7 tower DO show that there were more fires burning than I had previously thought. I had never seen some of those photos and videos before. But it is black smoke, indicating a cool fire. In addition, NO MASSIVE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE VISIBLE. Why don't you put the pics in photoshop and circle in red the massive structural damage for us? Because I don't see it.

And I notice almost all your posts have been on this thread and one other about the Talmud. How obvious can you get.
 
Old March 22nd, 2009 #1208
A.S.
Diligence
 
A.S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,450
A.S.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonoleth Stiltskin View Post
It does appear a bit odd yes, especially if we are to assume someone planted it, however this article describes the seemingly strange event rather well:
http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

There were a lot of stuff found in the remains and debris that one wouldn't expect to have found. Other passports were found if I recall correctly, and a woman's wig, cushins etc.
You yids would be much better off just admitting that one was a hoax, a media mistake, anything but actually trying to convince us it really happened. LOL

The link you posted boils down to this:

1) Why would the gov't/media report it if it didn't happen? It wasn't necessary.

My response: I dunno, how about careless sloppy lying? Typical of the Jews. They're arrogant, they always tell sloppy lies because they run the news media and figure they can get away with it.

2) Another media report states that a girl's mileage card was found! So there!

My response: Oh, well that settles it then! If the same Jew run media reports other things were found, hell, the passport must have fell to the ground!

3) Examples of other plane crashes were passengers belongings survive intact.

My response: yeah, duh. They are different crashes. Sometimes the entire plane isn't incinerated in a huge fireball like the planes that hit the WTC towers. If a plane hits the ground, the angle of impact/explosion would be entirely different than what we saw at the WTC towers. In the latter case, the plane was obviously consumed ENTIRELY by the explosion, along with everyone/everything in it. We saw it happen right before our eyes.

4) Pictures of debris lying on the street around the towers after impact

My response: so? This proves?? Like no debris is going to fall to the ground when a friggin plane hits? Plenty of it will, but it will mostly be stuff from the building, and metal parts of the plane that aren't as easily consumed by a massive fireball as a passport would have been.

Last edited by A.S.; March 22nd, 2009 at 05:02 AM.
 
Old March 22nd, 2009 #1209
Joe Keyes
Member
 
Joe Keyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vanguard Frontier Border
Posts: 439
Joe Keyes
Default

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html


Quote:
The basement of 4 World Trade Center housed vaults used to store gold and silver bullion. Published articles about precious metals recovered from the World Trade Center ruins in the aftermath of the attack mention less than $300 million worth of gold. All such reports appear to refer to a removal operation conducted in late October of 2001. On Nov. 1, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani announced that "more than $230 million" worth of gold and silver bars that had been stored in a bomb-proof vault had been recovered. A New York Times article contained:

Quote:
* Comex metals trading - 3,800 gold bars weighing 12 tonnes and worth more than $100 million
* Comex clients - 800,000 ounces of gold with a value of about $220 million
* Comex clients - 102 million ounces of silver, worth $430 million
* Bank of Nova Scotia - $200 million of gold

 
Old March 22nd, 2009 #1210
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Hans Norling
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsphaltSoldier88 View Post
This is where the official story falls flat on it's face. Because it is quite obvious that the section ABOVE the impact/fires would collapse, but not the entire building below. Because...
Well not really because the collapse does evidently insue at the impact area and it comes down on the entire building. The structural load was too great for the underlying floors which caused the progressive collapse.

Quote:
Sure I can, the same principles are at work. But if you like, we can modify my example. Let us make it 3 steel rods welded together every 2ft (this is analogous to the WTC tower's core) to create a 6ft rod. It doesn't really matter what we attach to this rod, the rod is the foundation holding the structure up (just as the cores in the twin towers).

Now, again, stick the rod in the ground, file and torch the rod at the 4ft mark, and what will happen? Same thing: portion of rod above the part filed/torched will fall over. Portion below won't.
Again, you can't use a rigid piece, even if divided in three pieces they would form a straight solid line as opposed to segments of segments of steel structure with the cubic-feet area being mostly comprised of air volume wise.
If I took a steel rod, it wouldn't matter how much weight I put on it from above, it would only at best buckle under pressure, not implode. Why not? Well there would be nothing for it to implode toward, ie fall collapse inward and downward, since it is solid steel.
But we are not talking about specific columns, or any given column, imploding into its own, but failing to support and thus giving away to the pressure and falling down. You see structures are funny things, they usually do not design buildings to let the upper parts of two thirds of a steel-framed building suddenly having to carry 33% more weight, which then when they fail increases in percentage, hence progressive collapse. Look it up.

Do you realise you are de facto claiming that a steel framed structure can not collapse down on undamaged portions and cause them to collapse in turn? Is this what you truly believe?

Quote:
It's interesting you just brushed this one aside so quickly. Apparently there is no convenient pre-written response for it that you can google? LOL
Seriously, it is an off the wall argument using an apple-vs-organge comparison. With your logic, we can readily use structural weight and integrity ratios comparable to welding some steel rods ontop of each other and call it a day. One of the dumbest things I've heard from a truther yet, no offence.

Quote:
To be fair, the photos and video you show of the WTC7 tower DO show that there were more fires burning than I had previously thought. I had never seen some of those photos and videos before. But it is black smoke, indicating a cool fire.
Well, black smoke does not equate cool fire. It can, in some cases, indicate cooler fires, but that is just one of many commonly found reasons for darker smoke. Hydrocarbon fueled fires would give quite black smoke for example.

Quote:
In addition, NO MASSIVE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE VISIBLE. Why don't you put the pics in photoshop and circle in red the massive structural damage for us? Because I don't see it.
There were a lot of structural damage visible in the videos and pictures, the huge gash on the south side, I can clearly see it for myself, plus the south side's corner being almost entirely ripped away below the 12-10th floor and down.

Quote:
And I notice almost all your posts have been on this thread and one other about the Talmud. How obvious can you get.
On this thread? I don't think so. However, are you saying I must be jewish because I write a lot here on the 9/11 issue as well as on Judaic theology? Is it something you would like to discuss?

Quote:
You yids would be much better off just admitting that one was a hoax, a media mistake, anything but actually trying to convince us it really happened. LOL
I'm not a jew.

Again, why would they plant it there? For what reason? So that conspiracy theorists can scream bloody murder? You had a lot of unexpected stuff found, this was one of them.

Quote:
My response: I dunno, how about careless sloppy lying? Typical of the Jews. They're arrogant, they always tell sloppy lies because they run the news media and figure they can get away with it.
Well to me that seems to be the standard truther come-back, careless sloppyness, since it alone explains why 9/11 was "so obviously" a hoax. fact An event which required massively coordinated precision yet handled by fumbleheads and butterfingers 24/7 at almost every problematic claim raised.
A british passport of one of the passengers were reportedly found, the tied hands of one of the hostages, a can of worms still alive, barely burned cushins, unburned files and papers etc etc.

Quote:
My response: yeah, duh. They are different crashes. Sometimes the entire plane isn't incinerated in a huge fireball like the planes that hit the WTC towers.
The entire plane was not "incinerated in a huge fireball", there were a lot of identifiable plane debris found as well.

Quote:
4) Pictures of debris lying on the street around the towers after impact

My response: so? This proves?? Like no debris is going to fall to the ground when a friggin plane hits? Plenty of it will, but it will mostly be stuff from the building, and metal parts of the plane that aren't as easily consumed by a massive fireball as a passport would have been.
But by your logic we would never be able to find anything that would be easily consumed by such fires, but we have both from the planes and from the WTC's.
 
Old March 22nd, 2009 #1211
DouglasReed
Don't call me Junior
 
DouglasReed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Boston
Posts: 293
DouglasReed
Default

Wow, there is so much new 9-11 stuff on the Internet. I see what the no plane thing is now. Makes total sense and is undoubtedly correct. That video of the plane crashing into the tower was always unreal. An aluminum plane melting into a wall of steel girders.

Here's an even better guy on the micro-nukes, reviewing the previous report:

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/20...t-nuclear.html
 
Old March 22nd, 2009 #1212
Joe Keyes
Member
 
Joe Keyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vanguard Frontier Border
Posts: 439
Joe Keyes
Default


Quote:
Originally Posted by DouglasReed View Post
Here's an even better guy on the micro-nukes, reviewing the previous report:

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/20...t-nuclear.html
Now that we got the nuke connection, do you see the immigration connection?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...55&postcount=3
Quote:
How will a larger guest worker program stop terrorist who want to murder as many American school children as they can?

How will a bigger guest worker program prevent terrorist from smuggling a nuke across the porous southern border?
Check Alex Linder's profile for the connection to the Jews involved with immigration legislation.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...87651203625811
The above video changed the paradigm of posting at vnnf back in 2004.
http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=8534
 
Old March 22nd, 2009 #1213
A.S.
Diligence
 
A.S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,450
A.S.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonoleth Stiltskin View Post
Well not really because the collapse does evidently insue at the impact area and it comes down on the entire building. The structural load was too great for the underlying floors which caused the progressive collapse.
But, the cores should not have collapsed, as per my analogy.

Quote:
Again, you can't use a rigid piece,
Why not? The WTC tower cores weren't rigid?

Quote:
even if divided in three pieces they would form a straight solid line as opposed to segments of segments of steel structure with the cubic-feet area being mostly comprised of air volume wise.
So in my analogy use hollow steel tubes.

Quote:
If I took a steel rod, it wouldn't matter how much weight I put on it from above, it would only at best buckle under pressure, not implode. Why not? Well there would be nothing for it to implode toward, ie fall collapse inward and downward, since it is solid steel.
Totally agree.

Quote:
But we are not talking about specific columns, or any given column, imploding into its own, but failing to support and thus giving away to the pressure and falling down.
We are discussing the WTC tower cores, so let's stay focused.

If I take 3 hollow steel tubes 2 ft long, weld them together to form a 6ft hollow tube, stick it in the ground, file/torch it at the 4ft mark, the same thing will happen... portion above the 4ft mark will fall off, bottom portion below 4ft mark won't.

You can even weld little mini "floors" to the tubes if you like. Bottom line is they are the main support...so the analogy is the same.

Quote:
You see structures are funny things, they usually do not design buildings to let the upper parts of two thirds of a steel-framed building suddenly having to carry 33% more weight,
I think what you mean is the parts of the structure that were ripped out/burned would no longer provide support, so the rest of the support structure that is still intact would have to compensate (carry more load).

I agree with this. But it does not explain total collapse straight down of the WTC tower cores. Partial collapse is certainly possible (as per my analogy).


Quote:
Do you realise you are de facto claiming that a steel framed structure can not collapse down on undamaged portions and cause them to collapse in turn? Is this what you truly believe?
I am claiming no such thing. I am only claiming what I describe in my perfectly valid analogy with regards to the WTC tower cores.

Quote:
Seriously, it is an off the wall argument using an apple-vs-organge comparison.
No, it's a decent analogy, which describes essentially the same forces that were at work on the WTC tower cores.

Quote:
Well, black smoke does not equate cool fire. It can, in some cases, indicate cooler fires, but that is just one of many commonly found reasons for darker smoke. Hydrocarbon fueled fires would give quite black smoke for example.

There were a lot of structural damage visible in the videos and pictures, the huge gash on the south side, I can clearly see it for myself, plus the south side's corner being almost entirely ripped away below the 12-10th floor and down.
I've seen that pic. It shows only a part of the corner of the building damaged. You expect us to believe that would cause the entire building to come straight down? LOL

You posted a link earlier that stated the outer perimeter of WTC7 carried the weight of the building (i.e. was main support). So if that were true, the part of the building above the ripped out corner would have nothing to support it, so it might fall, pulling the entire structure sideways/down toward the ripped out portion. But the parts of the building that are NOT above the ripped out part are still being supported by the parts below them, as usual. They would not fall straight down. The video footage I have seen shows the building falling straight down.

Quote:
On this thread? I don't think so. However, are you saying I must be jewish because I write a lot here on the 9/11 issue as well as on Judaic theology? Is it something you would like to discuss?

I'm not a jew.
Fine, you're not a jew. You're just super interested in Judaism and defend the 9-11 official story which benefits them.

Quote:
Again, why would they plant it there? For what reason? So that conspiracy theorists can scream bloody murder? You had a lot of unexpected stuff found, this was one of them.
One could see how the passport story would be useful propaganda, because it's dramatic. I can just imagine the average kwan knuckle-dragger getting all rabid about "dem dam A-rabs!" after hearing it.

Quote:
Well to me that seems to be the standard truther come-back, careless sloppyness, since it alone explains why 9/11 was "so obviously" a hoax.
Physics is what proves the official story is not possible. The sloppy lying about the passport is just propaganda. I merely bring it up because it's an amusing story to poke fun at.

Quote:
fact An event which required massively coordinated precision yet handled by fumbleheads and butterfingers 24/7 at almost every problematic claim raised.
It wasn't handled by fumbleheads, it was pulled off quite well. Remember what Hitler said about the "big lie" technique... (his quote often taken out of context to make it seem like he advocated it):

Quote:
... in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
Quote:
A british passport of one of the passengers were reportedly found, the tied hands of one of the hostages, a can of worms still alive, barely burned cushins, unburned files and papers etc etc.
I think the can of worms you're talking about is the space shuttle thing, which broke apart upon re-entry into Earth's atmosphere. Totally different circumstances.

Quote:
The entire plane was not "incinerated in a huge fireball", there were a lot of identifiable plane debris found as well.
But by your logic we would never be able to find anything that would be easily consumed by such fires, but we have both from the planes and from the WTC's.
Well, technically there is no way for me to disprove the passport story, nor any way for you to prove it. It's one of those things where people's common sense will kick in (if they have any)... i.e. how likely is it that a passport survived that massive impact/explosion, and then fell to the ground to be found?

Even your favorite website, 911myths.com states that the airplane's black boxes were destroyed in the attacks on the twin towers.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/The_Black_Boxes
 
Old March 22nd, 2009 #1214
A.S.
Diligence
 
A.S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,450
A.S.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Keyes View Post

Now that we got the nuke connection, do you see the immigration connection?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...55&postcount=3

Quote:
How will a larger guest worker program stop terrorist who want to murder as many American school children as they can?

How will a bigger guest worker program prevent terrorist from smuggling a nuke across the porous southern border?
These are good questions. Jonoleth, how do you answer them?

If the official 9-11 story is true, then shouldn't the government try to halt the flow of foreign nationals from the Middle East (i.e. Arabs/Muslims)?

After all, it may offend some people, but what's more important, not offending people or preventing another 9-11?
 
Old March 22nd, 2009 #1215
Julian Lüchow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kansas
Posts: 888
Julian Lüchow
Post False flag - "Was it good for the Jews?" Oh my yes.

I don't know why it is so hard to believe that 9/11 was a "false flag" or at least allowed to happen by our government. It all fit a little too perfectly into Israel's plans to use Yankee-Judaea as it's battering ram in the Middle East and the ZOG's plans to trap us in a police state. History teaches us that events don't "just happen" to fortuitously benefit the Jew - they are orchestrated and executed by the Jew for just that purpose.
 
Old March 22nd, 2009 #1216
Joe Keyes
Member
 
Joe Keyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vanguard Frontier Border
Posts: 439
Joe Keyes
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsphaltSoldier88 View Post
These are good questions. Jonoleth, how do you answer them?

If the official 9-11 story is true, then shouldn't the government try to halt the flow of foreign nationals from the Middle East (i.e. Arabs/Muslims)?

After all, it may offend some people, but what's more important, not offending people or preventing another 9-11?
Ron Paul walked the line of promoting a secure national sovereignty as well as non interventionist foreign policy rather well.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heather Blue
>Indoctrination can only work in the absence of authority.
gab.ai/mikemazzone
 
Old March 22nd, 2009 #1217
A.S.
Diligence
 
A.S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,450
A.S.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krystian Kowalczyk View Post
I don't know why it is so hard to believe that 9/11 was a "false flag" or at least allowed to happen by our government. It all fit a little too perfectly into Israel's plans to use Yankee-Judaea as it's battering ram in the Middle East and the ZOG's plans to trap us in a police state. History teaches us that events don't "just happen" to fortuitously benefit the Jew - they are orchestrated and executed by the Jew for just that purpose.
Yep.

Cui_bono Cui_bono


And besides, even if we FULLY accept the official 9-11 story, we must ask ourselves: why were we attacked?

If you're a real moron, you believe the government explanation that Muslim "extremists" attacked us because they "hate our freedom".

The truth of course, is our pro-Zionist foreign policy. In other words, JEWS. God damn filthy stinking rotten JEWS.
 
Old March 23rd, 2009 #1218
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Hans Norling
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsphaltSoldier88 View Post
But, the cores should not have collapsed, as per my analogy.
Should not have collapsed? You had interior columns attached to the exterior columns via truss-members inbetween, i.e pulling-pressure is not only possible, it is guaranteed. And if the perimeter columns were pulled in, it means the trusses were pulling at the interior columns as well, and that the weight on this pressure increased the more the floors sagged. Afterall the WTC 1-2 were much like a so called tube-in-a-tube structure.

Quote:
Why not? The WTC tower cores weren't rigid?
They were constructed by a multitude of steel-members that were dependant on the truss-to-perimeter columns in order to be able to support its structural integrity, as the core columns weren't constructed to hold up the weight as a stand-alone multifacetted skeletton. So, when the rest began to fail and pulling the interior ones to the outside and the exterior ones to the inside with the increasing weight downward as the steel members lost integrity/strength, they failed and let go/came crashing down on the lower undamaged sections, columns which weren't constructed to take that kind of vertical onslaught.

Quote:
So in my analogy use hollow steel tubes...

If I take 3 hollow steel tubes 2 ft long, weld them together to form a 6ft hollow tube, stick it in the ground, file/torch it at the 4ft mark, the same thing will happen... portion above the 4ft mark will fall off, bottom portion below 4ft mark won't.

You can even weld little mini "floors" to the tubes if you like. Bottom line is they are the main support...so the analogy is the same.
If we build a high-rise steel skeleton with tubes, similar to the core-structure of the WTC's, then attach trusses to exterior columns, add a lot of weight-per-floor, then given the damage and cause of sagging floors, the pulling of trusses on the columns, then the upper third part of this construction could collapse unto the remaining portions and cause them to snap in the bolted joints and here and there bend as well.

The columns were not three segment, or even ten segment steel members ontop of each other, but rather like a toothpick assemblement forming the necessary structural skeletton to hold the floors and attached trusses in static state via connection to the perimeter columns. If all comes crashing down and pulls the joints of the multi-member column structure then it will most likely not be able to stand.

If we simply use steel rods ontop of each other, like a large flag-pole, we wouldn't in any sense have a resembling structure, it wouldn't even be a structure, it would be rod unto rod forming a pole as opposed to an interwoven skeleton depended on each others joints to hold the weight and trusses and perimeter columns.

Quote:
I think what you mean is the parts of the structure that were ripped out/burned would no longer provide support, so the rest of the support structure that is still intact would have to compensate (carry more load).

I agree with this. But it does not explain total collapse straight down of the WTC tower cores. Partial collapse is certainly possible (as per my analogy).
As a progressive collapse, depending on the structure (WTC's fit beautifully structure'wise), you would have with every floor giving away an increased pressure on the damaged floors with massive amounts of kinetic energy pushing down, when you have 20 floors snapping it's hold-up at its lowest point, it is going to come down and do so rather hard. The floors were below had to deal with an increases load as the upper 20 floors slowly but steadily began adding more and more pressure to them before coming down, as the floors below them would, as the floors below them would etc (ie also called propagating instabilities). So the force was dispersed downard, with over 2000 pounds per square foot unto floors only designed to handle around 100 pounds per square foot, hence the progressive collapse and undamaged floors rapidly and increasingly lacking in vertical integrity as the number of floors that came crashing down increased as rapidly.

I recommend you to, among other papers, read this one in particular;
*Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis

Also, here's a simplistic but inherently correct way to show how the "tipping like a tree" argument is nonsensical given the data;
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1243

Quote:
I am claiming no such thing. I am only claiming what I describe in my perfectly valid analogy with regards to the WTC tower cores.
I said;
"Do you realise you are de facto claiming that a steel framed structure can not collapse down on undamaged portions and cause them to collapse in turn? Is this what you truly believe?"

You can't have the cake and eat it too. Meaning, you can't say that you do not claim the above while using a wholly misplaced analogy to argue that the WTC cores could not collapse since they would be expected to behave like your steel-rod analogy.

Quote:
No, it's a decent analogy, which describes essentially the same forces that were at work on the WTC tower cores.
No, it does not describe the same forces in any way at all, nor the pressure attached to the steel in an interwoven, interlocked co-dependant structural skeletton. You can never exchange in explaining, one of those, with using an analogy of steel rods or tubes welded together like a pole.

Quote:
I've seen that pic. It shows only a part of the corner of the building damaged. You expect us to believe that would cause the entire building to come straight down? LOL
I never claimed that this damage caused the collapse. It didn't. It did however help the building to become notably unstable, especially for any proceeding collapse from the upper parts, which was the case. It caused a hole in the side and south-part of the building about 10 stories high (as can be partly seen from the picture). I'd call that massive damage though, which you denied were visible.

Quote:
You posted a link earlier that stated the outer perimeter of WTC7 carried the weight of the building (i.e. was main support). So if that were true, the part of the building above the ripped out corner would have nothing to support it, so it might fall, pulling the entire structure sideways/down toward the ripped out portion. But the parts of the building that are NOT above the ripped out part are still being supported by the parts below them, as usual. They would not fall straight down. The video footage I have seen shows the building falling straight down.
Are you for real? The parts of the building below the ripped out part (I believe the gash in the corner stretched to ground, though I can't find the photo I had earlier on it), would still remain via the structural bearing of the outer perimeters as well as the trusses connected to the interior columns that were undamaged until something from above would knock them out.

Furthermore, the building did fall partially to the south, most likely due to the damage it had sustained on the lower parts there. There are plenty of firefighters reporting this, even before the building collapses (that it was starting to lean slightly to the south).

Quote:
Fine, you're not a jew. You're just super interested in Judaism and defend the 9-11 official story which benefits them.
A bad/incorrect/poor and specultative argument against Jewry only ends up to their benefit, much moreso than an average argument made on their behalf.

I'm probably not more interested in Judaism or 9/11 than many other racialists, I just happen to (in general) know more about it and I feel it necessary to weed out the yahoo cowboy nonsense so often spouted by those across the pond.

Quote:
Physics is what proves the official story is not possible. The sloppy lying about the passport is just propaganda. I merely bring it up because it's an amusing story to poke fun at.
No physics does not prove any controlled demolition theory concerning the WTC's.

Quote:
It wasn't handled by fumbleheads, it was pulled off quite well. Remember what Hitler said about the "big lie" technique... (his quote often taken out of context to make it seem like he advocated it):
Well that would depend on what 9/11 Truther theories you believe in. If we look at it somewhat convergently, we have scores of people "accidentally" admitting to it all in interviews, television, mistakes in airing news segments, forgetting to place enough large plane parts at the "missile hit at Pentagon", admittance of blowing the buildings up, admittance of taking out the planes with fighter jets and on and on and on. In essence, the largest fiasco hoax ever done, so obvious that your average kid can discover it with watching a video on YouTube.

Mmm indeed...

Quote:
Even your favorite website, 911myths.com states that the airplane's black boxes were destroyed in the attacks on the twin towers.
Yes, so? For you it might seem as a magic, supernatural event that something like that can be destroyed while other less resiliant parts were not, but I do not consider it to necessarily be so.
 
Old March 23rd, 2009 #1219
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Hans Norling
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsphaltSoldier88 View Post
These are good questions. Jonoleth, how do you answer them?

If the official 9-11 story is true, then shouldn't the government try to halt the flow of foreign nationals from the Middle East (i.e. Arabs/Muslims)?

After all, it may offend some people, but what's more important, not offending people or preventing another 9-11?
Personally I feel strongly against middle-eastern migration into my country for several reasons. However, I fail to see that anything short of a complete blockade of arabs into the US proves complicity in 9/11.

With this logic, I could just as well ask you; if you or an american truther truly truly truly believed their Government murdered thousands of their own in cold blood terrorist attack on their own soil, then why do you still live in the US?, are you not terrified to enter large office buildings, ride trains, travel by airplanes?, visit national monuments or other forms of potential targets for unknown diabolical plans of the Government?, do you watch for the men in black at every corner?, do you live in an underground bunker with its own generator?, do you examine your mail for traces of anthrax? etc...

My guess is, none of the above.
 
Old March 23rd, 2009 #1220
Slamin2
gassed at least 5 times
 
Slamin2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wolzek (get it?)
Posts: 1,176
Slamin2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DouglasReed View Post
Wow, there is so much new 9-11 stuff on the Internet. I see what the no plane thing is now. Makes total sense and is undoubtedly correct. That video of the plane crashing into the tower was always unreal. An aluminum plane melting into a wall of steel girders.

Here's an even better guy on the micro-nukes, reviewing the previous report:

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/20...t-nuclear.html
If the videos are fake, and the photos, then how do you explain the thousands that saw and HEARD the planes?

Holograms with sound?
__________________
RabbitNoMore

But all jews do speak in absolutes though. Just like you.

-----------

Define idiot
 
Reply

Tags
#1, 911, c4l, gov, jew bs, jew vs jew, jews did 9-11, wtc

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:24 AM.
Page generated in 0.24918 seconds.